While these immense movements of troops were being effected, the conflict raged, more especially at the centre, where General von Kluck was striving to break the junction in the square marked out by the French lines. Firmly established in the forts at the north of Reims, he had revenged himself for his inability to capture the town by bombarding the cathedral, on which, from September 13 to the end of the year, the work of destruction was to be persistently directed every time that a German attack was repulsed. In the Soissons district furious attacks were sustained by the British troops. The Battle of the Aisne, taken as a whole, ended in a success for the Allies, for the discomfiture of the Germans was such that the Emperor deprived General von Moltke of his post as Chief of the General Staff, replacing him first by General Voigts-Retz, then by the Minister of War. The Crown Prince, who had not been very successful in the conduct of the operations on the left, was replaced by General von Einem, and, after a mysterious eclipse, was sent to the Eastern front. The weakness of the German Army lay in the inadequacy of the chief command.

During October the chief interest of the struggle centred in the northern area of the war. The Belgian Army had evacuated Antwerp on October 9, and, with the aid of a landing force of British marines and bluejackets, and a British squadron lying off the coast, it had escaped the German grasp and retired, first on Ostend, then on the coast district of West Flanders. The Belgian Government established itself at Havre, while King Albert encouraged by his presence the remains of the organised forces of the Kingdom. The modest nucleus was destined to be increased rapidly by the reinforcements provided by the enrolment of all Belgians of military age who had fled before the invasion. To these General Joffre added a new army under the command of General d'Urbal; and, as this vast distribution of forces required that the command should be strongly organised, he took two coadjutors; and one of these, General Foch, was charged with the direction of the operations of the armies of the North, the other, General Pau, was concerned primarily with the armies of the East, and might, if necessary, take his own place as Commander-in-Chief. Thus the French armies were satisfactorily co-ordinated and combined; and all was ready to receive the new attack about to be made, under the personal supervision of the German Emperor, against the extreme left of the French Army. Twelve Army Corps and four Cavalry Corps were charged to break its resistance at all costs, and to reach Dunkirk and Calais, which were to serve as bases for the invasion of England. Under the pressure of this mass, sent to attack in deep columns regardless of the losses thereby imposed on the assailants, the Allies' troops were at first obliged to fall back to the Yser, and for three weeks, up to November 12, the result remained doubtful. But already the method of attrition employed by General Joffre and Sir John French was having its effect. The Prussian, Bavarian, and Würtemberg regiments had not the dash or the homogeneity of the troops that had invaded Belgium and France in August. The officers, commissioned and non-commissioned, were of very inferior quality; the greater part of the effectives consisted of soldiers who were either too young or too old, and were badly led; the superiority in artillery had passed to the defenders. The Emperor had to leave this theatre of war after the same lack of success as had marked his previous appearances on the front in Lorraine and Champagne. The German losses in the encounters collectively named the Battle of the Yser were estimated at 120,000. In accordance with the custom set up by the Germans, their long-range guns requited the humiliation inflicted on their troops by firing on the monuments of antiquity, and bombarded and completely destroyed the Cloth Hall of Ypres, a masterpiece of the Flemish architecture of the fourteenth century.

On the remainder of the front the struggle continued, and took on more and more the character of a war of siege. Instead of operations in the open field, both sides dug themselves into interminable trenches connected by tunnels through earth or rock, and strongly protected. In the aerial warfare the French and British airmen encountered the German Taubes and Aviatiks; fighting went on for weeks to capture or recover a wrecked and miserable village or a ragged clump of trees. In spite of all their efforts the Germans were unable either to recover Soissons or to capture Reims, or completely to invest Verdun. In the last-named quarter, after capturing St. Mihiel at the end of September, they had been compelled to confine themselves within the high ground along the Meuse, and to retire beyond Nancy, without, however, giving up all hope of returning to the attack. The winter campaign opened with the armies in this position of reciprocal defence. The war seemed likely to last much longer than had been expected at first, and to be a real war of exhaustion, in which the advantage would remain with whichever of the combatants displayed most obstinacy and tenacity.

However, it seemed improbable that the Germans would be in a position to resume their march on Paris; and the question arose whether the French Government should remain at Bordeaux. Indeed, in proportion as the war took on more and more the character of a chronic malady from which recovery would be lengthy, and as a renewal of the German advance against Paris became increasingly improbable, the inconveniences involved in the continued stay of the Government at Bordeaux were more keenly realised. In spite of the reticence imposed on the Press by the censorship, the bitter criticisms suggested to the people of the great south-western city by the influx of the strange crowd that swarmed round the public offices were echoed throughout France. Unpleasant comments were aroused by the contrast between the casual methods displayed in the fashionable restaurants of Bordeaux and the almost ascetic and Puritanical attitude of the people of Paris. The difficulties of communication hampered not only business, but even the action of the authorities. The deputies of Paris formed themselves into a group presided over by M. Denys Cochin, a Conservative member for the Department of the Seine; but it included also Socialists as well as Moderates. Without actually forming a State within a State, this body, unknown to the Constitution, speedily showed an activity with which the Government was compelled to reckon. It became the mouthpiece for all the complaints set up by the economic crisis with which Paris was struggling. Another group arose, that of the Senators and Deputies of the invaded districts. It made M. Leon Bourgeois its spokesman, and took up the defence of the interests, whether material or moral, of the populations of the North-East. The Ministry was quite aware of the hindrance to the war of which these particularist tendencies contained the germs; but they thought it more prudent to make terms. Various missions were entrusted to members of the Ministry; M. Briand, M. Sembat, M. Millerand, and even M. Viviani himself, repeatedly came to parley with representatives of Paris and the North-East. M. Poincaré twice left Bordeaux to visit the armies, and made one of his visits coincide with that paid by King George V. at the beginning of December to the British Expeditionary Force (p. 246). This conciliatory policy bore satisfactory fruit. The feeling of the public generally remained excellent. A generous rivalry was exhibited by the different Departments. Many Departmental Councils, whose session had been delayed in view of the war, voted aid in money or in kind to the war victims and the refugees. The towns, the Chambers of Commerce, and associations of all kinds vied with one another in generosity, and, as the winter became more rigorous, paid ample contribution to the National Relief Committee, enabling M. Appel, its President, and his fellow-workers to meet all demands. In spite of the unemployment and the rise in the cost of living, the necessitous classes passed through this difficult time without great suffering.

Little by little, business began to recover. Great improvements had been effected in the management of the railways; from October onwards, the express services had been to some extent re-established on all the lines. In November the continued depression in the foreign exchanges had been stopped, the imports and exports were increasing again; so was the revenue from taxation, direct and indirect. On December 7 the Paris Bourse, which had been closed since September 3, resumed its operation for cash transactions. True the 3 per cent. Rente opened at 72.50, while before the closing it had remained firm at 75, but this latter price was due to the fact that the syndicate of agents de change had forbidden dealings at a lower figure. The market was not swamped, as had been feared, by the offer of enormous masses of securities; the provincial Exchanges, at Lyons, Bordeaux, Marseilles and other great towns, which had continued open while the Paris Bourse was closed, had quietly absorbed a great part of the stocks offered. The political situation cleared up likewise. On December 8 the Government returned to Paris. M. Millerand alone of all the Ministers remained behind for a few days, his department requiring rather more time for its transference. The Chambers were summoned for December 22, to give legal sanction to the measures taken since August 4 by the Government. Their Committees had never had so much work, for it was really on them that the control given by the Constitution to the two Chambers had of necessity devolved. Though certain persons were impatient and some ambitions were disappointed, the truce of parties was maintained. If the Ministers favoured the Committees on the war, on foreign affairs, and on finance, with certain confidential statements not quite in harmony with the occasionally ambiguous optimism of the daily official war bulletins in the Press, the secrecy of these statements was well kept; the measures taken by the Ministry during the Parliamentary interregnum were collectively judged worthy of approval, and the innovations proposed were accepted. Among the measures taken mention must be made of the decree signed by M. Ribot on December 11, restoring to the paying Treasurers-General the prerogatives and advantages lost some years earlier; they recovered the right of obtaining on their personal credit the capital advanced by them to the State to give steadiness during the first months of the financial year. Among the innovations we must note the abolition in the Budget of 1915 of all the special accounts which had gradually grown up beside the account of current expenditure; repair of war material, naval construction, Morocco, reduction of succession duties in the case of direct heirs or of wives of soldiers killed on active service, and, finally, the suspension for 1915 of the complementary income-tax (p. 271), in view of the impossibility of completing, while the war lasted, the formalities prescribed by the Finance Act of 1914. On December 22 and 23 the Chambers unanimously adopted the proposals of the Government. They had received with acclamation the dignified declaration of M. Viviani on behalf of the Ministry and the entire nation, that France, together with her Allies, would carry on the war to the end, and would not lay down her arms until the provinces torn from her by force were for ever welded to their French fatherland. A like greeting had been given to the fine Presidential address of M. Paul Deschanel in the Chamber, and to that of M. Antonin Dubost in the Senate. It was under this reassuring impression of unity and concord that the year came to its end. For the first six months of 1915 the Chambers voted credits of 8,525,000,000 francs (341,000,000l.). They also postponed till the end of the war all the elections, including the partial renewal of the Senate, due at the beginning of January, 1915. Everything was made subordinate to national defence, by the entire nation as by its representatives. Meanwhile the allied armies, firmly fixed in their trenches as if in winter quarters, continued, without much progress but also without retirement, the war of attrition which was gradually thinning the forces of the invader and drawing away their strength.

II. ITALY.

At the beginning of the autumn of 1911, and at the calmly calculated instigation of Signor Giolitti, Italy undertook to conquer Tripoli; and thereby she obliged herself to choose between two courses: either that of frankly denouncing, sooner or later, the treaty forming the basis of the Triple Alliance, or that of extricating herself from it with dexterity. Never, perhaps, had Italian diplomatic talent found itself confronted with problems of such complexity; unquestionably, on many occasions during 1914, it showed itself surpassingly skilful. The situation was dominated by three great facts: (1) the eclipse of Signor Giolitti, and the resultant developments of the parties in Parliament; (2) the declaration of neutrality with the skilful manœuvres which led up to the Italian landing at Valona; (3) the death of Pope Pius X. and the efforts of his successor, Benedict XV., to guard the prestige of the Church between Austria and Prussia on one side and France and Belgium on the other.

Signor Giolitti had repeatedly expressed a desire to quit public life; at the age of seventy he began to feel the weariness entailed on him by the difficulties of Parliamentary work. His determination was strengthened during the January recess. The Radicals were showing indications of independence. The Nationalists were agitating; their organs in the Press claimed that Turkey should indemnify Italy for the supplementary expenses entailed by the attacks of the Arabs in the Cyrenaica, who had been formed into military units by the officers and privates of the Ottoman Army who, despite the Treaty of Ouchy, had remained in Libya. They demanded railway concessions in Asia Minor, and M. Venizelos, the Greek Premier, came to Rome to confer with the Italian Foreign Minister, the Marchese di San Giuliano, on the subject of Epirus and the islands. The Socialists were making progress. On February 9 they secured the election to the Chamber by an immense majority of Amilcare Cipriani, who, by reason of the numerous convictions he had undergone, was ineligible. New votes of credit were necessary, and the day before the Chambers reassembled, the Ministry decided to ask the Chamber for new taxation, estimated to produce 47,000,000 lire (1,880,000l.), to be levied on buildings in construction, prices of admission to cinema shows, public carriages, furniture removers, and mineral waters, and also from Customs. On February 10 the debate began on the extraordinary expenditure entailed by the expedition to Libya. It was destined to last more than three weeks, and it would have dragged on longer, had not the Socialists decided to give up obstructing in return for an engagement by the Minister of Public Worship to introduce a Bill providing that civil marriage should invariably precede the religious ceremony. The debate was marked (Feb. 27) by a spirited encounter between Signor Giolitti and Signor Luzzatti. At last (March 4) the Premier summed up his African policy, and declared that he would not ask for a vote of confidence, but would merely request the House to pass to the consideration of the clauses of the Bill. His demand was granted by 361 to 83, with three abstentions. But some days later (March 7) the Radical group in Parliament adopted a resolution expressing the opinion that the time had come to lay stress on its distinctive differences. Two Ministers belonged to it; they resigned. The Socialists organised a one-day general strike in sympathy with the hospital attendants, a number of whom had been discharged; and at Rome this manœuvre had some success. On March 10 Signor Giolitti announced to the Chamber that he had resigned, and that the King had accepted his resignation. The Chamber adjourned.

The situation presented great difficulties, for the retiring Ministry retained its influence to the full, and its members continued personally to act on every branch of the Administration. A new Ministry had to be found pliant enough to accept its patronage, and with sufficient dignity to retain a certain degree of independence and maintain the prestige of office. Signor Salandra proved to be the right man for the occasion. His financial ability gave him almost the authority of a Luzzatti; his reputation for enlightened Conservatism enabled him to obtain sufficient help among the members of the Right to make up for the hostility of the Radical irreconcilables. He accepted the task imposed on him by the King at Signor Giolitti's suggestion; and on March 20 the new Cabinet presented itself to the Chamber. It was a Cabinet of concentration, containing no representative of the Extreme Right or Extreme Left, and consisting for the most part of the late Ministers. At the Ministry of War, General Spingardi was succeeded by General Grandi, who had declared that he would be satisfied with an extraordinary expenditure of 200,000,000 francs (8,000,000l.) spread over five years, while General Porro, whose appointment was favoured by the Chief of the General Staff, General Tassoni, demanded 325,000,000 lire (13,000,000l.). The Finance Bills had still to be examined again; some days were required for their further discussion, and it was only on April 5 that Signor Salandra was able to state his general policy. Before a crowded Chamber, he expressed himself with a firmness and geniality which assured him goodwill; he promised a policy which would maintain the dignity of the nation abroad and secure progress at home; wise reforms, educational, economic, and social, an honest Administration, and strict management of finance. With some modification, the Civil Marriage Bill would be carried through. The Chamber approved this programme by 303 to 122, with nine abstentions, and adjourned (May 6). The Senate adjourned the next day, after approving the Foreign Minister's declaration regarding the expenditure on Libya and the expected renewal of the Triple Alliance, and applauding his statement that the interview between the King and the German Emperor at Venice (March 29) had shown that the period of effacement was over for Italy, and that her friendship with Great Britain and France was firmly established.

The Easter recess had been marked by an agitation among the railway men, which was successfully allayed by Signor Ciufelli, the Minister of Public Works; by an interview between the Foreign Ministers of Italy and of the Dual Monarchy, the Marchese de San Giuliano and Count Berchtold, at Abbazia; and by an Irredentist demonstration of students at Rome, Genoa, Florence, Naples, and other towns. Signor Salandra closed the University of Rome (May 6). The Budget debate began on May 7, with the Estimates for the Ministry of the Interior; on the same day the Bill was introduced imposing the new taxation amounting to 90,000,000 lire (3,600,000l.). Replying on May 12 to a violent attack on the subject of the disturbances at the University, Signor Salandra defended himself with energy, and the Chamber gave him its support. On May 19, on the other hand, he took a conciliatory tone, promising that in the impending elections of Provincial Councils the Government would allow all possible latitude; but, some days later, in reply to questions put by Signor Colajanni, Signor Barzilai, and Signor de Felice, on the removal of the Prefect of Naples, he replied that the official in question had shown a lack of energy in the disturbances. This encounter was a mere skirmish; at the beginning of June the Socialists returned to the charge. Disturbances of a wholly exceptional kind swept like a cyclone over the essentially revolutionary areas of the Marches and the Aemilia. On Constitution Day, June 7, the Socialists organised demonstrations at Florence, Turin, Imola, and elsewhere; the army was insulted, the red flag hoisted, the troops fired on the crowd. The funerals of the victims intensified the disturbances; a general strike was called at Rome, but this was only the revolutionists' usual move; but what happened in Romagna was without precedent altogether. The State seemed to be collapsing all at once. Such towns as Ancona, and all the villages, declared themselves free communes; the authorities went into hiding, and, for some days, the excited insurgents were convinced that their example had been followed all over Italy, and that the Federal Republic had been proclaimed at Rome. The rising was promptly and severely repressed; the agitators who were most deeply implicated took to flight. At Rome the middle classes organised counter-demonstrations, and the Secretary of the General Confederation of Labour hurriedly sent out (June 10) a circular ordering the strike to be stopped. When the matter came before the Chamber, the Prime Minister demanded that its decision should be explicit and positive; a Socialist resolution regretting the attitude of the Government was rejected, on a vote by roll-call, by 254 to 112.

Amid the impression left by these events, the provincial and municipal elections were held, in batches, as is the rule in Italy, on the Sundays from June 14 to July 16. At Rome the Constitutional ticket was successful, as also at Brescia, Modena, Siena, and Reggio. At Rome, Don Prospero Colonna was elected Syndic; at Milan and Naples the Socialists won. The Parliamentary sittings became stormy; for the rest of June the Socialists persistently obstructed the financial proposals of the Government. Signor Chiesa (Socialist) even overturned the voting-urn; he was severely assaulted by other members and suspended for some days (June 25). Finally on July 3, Signor Carcano, leader of the Giolittian group, interposed, and induced the Socialists to give up obstructing. The vote of 90,000,000 francs was passed by 224 to 34; the minority consisted of Socialists, and 72 Radicals abstained. Two days later the Chamber adjourned sine die.

The Government remained master of the situation. Domestic policy lost all interest in view of the complications set up by the Austro-Serbian conflict. Italian diplomacy strove to secure that counsels of moderation should prevail; but it was obstinately set aside by the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Office, and naturally resented this treatment. Public opinion was indignant at the violence displayed by Austria towards Serbia, and clearly perceived that the interests of Italy were gravely menaced by a complete break-up of the Balkan equilibrium. The Government refused to comply with the demand of the Socialists, assembled at Milan, to call the Chamber together, but on July 30 it mobilised the Fleet and concentrated it not at Brindisi, but at Gaëta. This was at once a warning and a concession as a matter of form. On July 31 the Austrian Ambassador, Herr von Flotow, notified the Italian Foreign Minister of the delivery of the ultimatum to Russia and France, and demanded information as to the attitude which Italy proposed to adopt. The Minister replied that Austria-Hungary had not consulted her ally, and that he could not answer before consulting the Prime Minister. The decisive hour had come. Two days later, on August 2, Italy signified her neutrality, her reason being that the casus fœderis had not arisen, inasmuch as Austria-Hungary and Germany had brought the situation to the point where it then stood by their initiative alone. The day following Major Kleist brought King Victor Emmanuel an autograph letter from the German Emperor. The King confined himself to declaring that his Constitutional duty was to support his responsible Ministry. Thus Italy took up officially an attitude of expectant and vigilant neutrality. She was destined to observe it till the end of the year, in spite of the pressure exercised by the advocates of intervention—Radicals, Liberals and Nationalists—who demanded an invasion of the Trentino and Istria. The Socialists, on the contrary, delivered impassioned speeches in favour of systematic and absolute neutrality. The armed peace and the economic disturbance required expenditure and special precautions. On August 4 a moratorium was established by decree; repayments of deposits and on current account were limited to fifty lire, and the maximum of currency issue permitted to the banks was increased. The resentment caused by this "betrayal" on the part of Italy was very acute in Germany, and still more in Austria; it showed itself by outrages on the numerous Italians employed in the mines and quarries of the basin of the Moselle, outrages in sharp contrast with the consideration and generosity of the French authorities, for which the Italian Ambassador at Paris, Signor Tittoni, tendered the cordial thanks of his Government.

The death of Pope Pius X., on August 20, gave the Ministry the opportunity of exhibiting an entirely correct attitude towards the Holy See. The Conclave opened on August 31. There were three parties in it; The Right, Conservative, directed by Cardinals Merry del Val and Billot, and inclined to vote for Cardinal de La[~i]; the Centre, led by Cardinals Pompili, Serafini, and Gatti, and putting forward Cardinal Ferrata; the Left, headed by Cardinals Agliardi, della Chiesa, and Amette, hesitated between Cardinals Gaspari and Maffi. But the Italian proverb, "He who enters the Conclave as Pope leaves it as Cardinal," was verified once more. After sixteen ballots Cardinal Agliardi pronounced the name of Cardinal Della Chiesa, who was elected on September 3 and took the name of Benedict XV. He was a professed diplomatist, and had been a collaborator of the late Cardinal Rampolla. He had only been a Cardinal for three months, and was Archbishop of Bologna. He had to define his course of conduct in the European struggle almost at once. The Belgian Cardinal Mercier, Archbishop of Malines, was destined, in returning from the Conclave, to come into conflict with the Germans, who had destroyed Louvain and Malines, and who prevented him from communicating with his suffragans and his flock. Contrary to general expectation, the new Pope did not take up with sufficient energy these encroachments on ecclesiastical prerogatives. His policy appeared to be timorous and the result was a revival of Gallicanism among the French clergy. Thus, when at the end of the year the Holy See enjoined all the Episcopal authorities to cause prayers to be offered for the restoration of peace, it met in France with an almost universal resistance. The Bishops refused to allow the Pope's words to be read without qualification; they were communicated subject to the reserve that there could be no question of any peace which did not safeguard the rights of the French nation. It was a bad beginning for the new Pope.

In contrast with this weakness on the part of the Roman Curia, the Government of the Italian kingdom adopted an attitude which was at once pliant and firm. Germany had been unable to resign herself to the neutrality of Italy; she resorted to every possible means of reviving the Gallophobia prevalent in the country under the rule of Crispi. A leading German Social Democrat, Herr Sudeküm, was sent to the Italian Socialists on a mission of instruction; they protested against the destruction of Louvain, and affirmed their sympathy for France, the "defender of civilisation"; they declared that they supported neutrality, but that, if the Italian Army attacked the Allies, they would rise in insurrection. This clumsy move on the part of Germany seemed at the moment to produce no effect on the Italian Government, but some days later (Sept. 3) the Fleet left Gaëta for Taranto, and troops were concentrated in the neighbourhood of Verona and Brescia. As it was rumoured that, in the event of a breach with Austria-Hungary, Italy would be attacked by a German Army coming from the St. Gothard, Signor Salandra notified the Swiss Government (Sept. 24) that Italy, which did not exist as a State in 1815, would formally adhere to the recognition then entered into of Swiss neutrality. Three days later the classes of 1884 to 1888 were mobilised, thereby raising the total of the effectives in the Italian peninsula to thirty army corps. At the same time an important change was made in the Ministry, General Grandi, who had not been able to come to an understanding with the Chief of the General Staff, resigned, and was succeeded by General Zupelli (Oct. 11), but, as the Marchese di San Giuliano died on October 16, a general reconstruction of the Ministry became inevitable. Signor Salandra resigned on November 2, and was again made Premier by the King. He made Signor Carcano, Signor Giolitti's second in command, Minister of Finance, and Signor Orlando Minister of Justice; and, some days later, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was accepted by Signor Sonnino. This latter greatly increased the activity of his Department; he summoned to Rome successively all the diplomatic representatives of the King at foreign Courts, and thoroughly convinced himself of the necessity of remaining for some time longer in an attitude of expectancy. The Chambers were summoned to sanction the financial measures taken by Royal decree, and to approve the international policy of the Government. The session was short, but productive. On December 4 the Ministry made a statement which was well received, and the question of neutrality was closely debated. The greatest sensation of the debate was the disclosure made by Signor Giolitti (Dec. 5) who read a despatch received by him as Prime Minister in August, 1913, and proving that at that time Austria-Hungary desired to attack Serbia and appealed to the Triple Alliance, but that Italy had refused her aid. Signor Giolitti concluded his speech by assuring the Government of his support, and thenceforward all its difficulties were solved. By 413 to 49 the Chamber accorded the Salandra Ministry a vote of confidence (Dec. 8), and thus it was understood that Italy was to preserve her attributes as a Great Power and to be ready at any moment to intervene if necessary. The Triple Alliance, which had not been actively denounced, was thus virtually dissolved.

To prevent Italy from turning against the Germanic Powers, the German ex-Chancellor, Prince Bülow, whose personal connexions at Rome were very extensive, was sent there as Ambassador Extraordinary, taking the place of Herr von Flotow. This mission, which was announced very loudly, was coldly received from the first by the Liberal party and the Italian Press. He waited to present the letters accrediting him as Ambassador till the Chambers had adjourned for the recess. The Senate adjourned on December 18, the Chamber on the 19th, after having accorded the Ministry the votes of credit which it demanded, passed the military Bills, and sanctioned a loan of 1,000,000,000 lire (40,000,000l.). Before the week was over, the Italian Fleet, under the command of Admiral Patris, effected without incident a landing at Valona. Italy did not yet side definitely with either set of combatants, but she took possession of an important pledge, thus signifying her firm intention not to allow herself to be neglected when the time came for a final settlement in the Balkans. This was a first step; Austria-Hungary, which had so categorically opposed an operation of the same sort in 1911, on this occasion made no objection. Times were changed.

CHAPTER II.
GERMANY AND AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.

I. GERMANY.

Germany, the protagonist of the great European War, though she professed to pursue the same policy this year with regard to the quarrel between Austria-Hungary and Serbia as she did in 1908 and 1913 (A.R., 1908, p. 311; 1913, p. 321), now found herself in a position where mere threats, even if expressed "in shining armour," would not have sufficed, for her ally was entering upon a struggle on which she believed her very existence depended, and Russia had nearly completed the reorganisation of her Army, while Germany had made hers ready to strike at any moment. The Militarische Rundschau declared in July that "if we do not decide for war, that war in which we shall have to engage at the latest in two or three years will be begun in far less propitious circumstances. At this moment the initiative rests with us: Russia is not ready, moral factors and right are on our side, as well as might. Since we shall have to accept the contest some day, let us provoke it at once. Our prestige, our position as a great Power, our honour, are in question; and yet more, for it would seem that our very existence is concerned." This, however, was only the view of the military party and the Pan-German professors. The mass of the people did not want war, and it was only when they were deluded into the belief that the war had been engineered by the British Government, with France and Russia as its tools, that they were filled with a bitter hatred of England and determined to fight to the last in defence, as they thought, of their country. One of the most popular books in Germany during the autumn was one entitled "Edward VII., the Greatest Criminal of the Nineteenth Century," and all foreign newspapers and books on the war were rigidly excluded, while the fanatical outburst known as "the Hymn of Hate for England" was distributed among the troops in the field. Its author received a decoration, and its sentiments were held to be justified by the supposed criminal plot of Great Britain and her allies against the existence of Germany. The German Government of course knew better; Herr Maximilian Harden described in his usual downright way its real motives as follows: "We are fighting not to punish criminals or free oppressed nationalities, but to get more room in the world for ourselves. Other nations, Spain, the Netherlands, Rome, Austria, France, England, have been at the helm, it is now our turn. It is folly to try to justify our encroachment on Belgian neutrality by saying that France and England would otherwise have done so."

The earlier part of the year was almost entirely occupied in Germany with the Zabern incidents (A.R., 1913, pp. 318-21), and the discontent in Alsace-Lorraine. Colonel Reuter and Lieutenant Schad were tried by a military court at Strasburg and fully acquitted (Jan. 5-11). The Military Court of Appeal at the same time reversed the sentence of forty-three days' imprisonment passed upon Lieutenant Forstner for striking a lame cobbler over the head with his sword, on the plea that it was only an ordinary military sword and had not been specially ground for the occasion. Colonel Reuter in his defence claimed entire responsibility for the acts of his subordinates, as he was "a Prussian officer and executed the orders of his King." He referred, apparently, to a Cabinet Order cited by the King of Prussia in 1820, when Prussia had no jurisdiction in South Germany; and the court held that this order fully justified his action, as it was applicable in every country where a Prussian officer happens to be. In Bavaria and Würtemberg, however, it was officially stated that in those countries there was not the slightest authorisation for independent military action in such cases (Jan. 14, 28). In the Prussian Upper House Count Yorck von Wartenburg complained that the representatives of the people had not displayed the national sentiment to be expected in the centenary year of the War of Liberation, as they were trying to strengthen the Reichstag at the cost of the Emperor, the Federal Council, and the separate States. The Reichstag was interfering in all directions, and had presumed to censure the Prussian Premier. Imperial laws were being passed by which "the King of Prussia lost more than the Emperor gained," and the Army must not be exposed to democratic impulses, lest Germany should become like England, which had "a life President at the head of a Republic." The Chancellor stated in reply that Prussia had never overstepped the restrictions she had placed upon herself in founding the German Empire, and that she was always supported in the Federal Council as the German dynasties were strong believers in unity. As to the new power of members of the Reichstag to put short questions to Ministers (A.R., 1913, p. 321), he promised to do everything he could to prevent the answering of questions from causing encroachments upon the Executive, adding that "votes of censure merely established the fact of a difference of opinion in a particular case between the Reichstag and the Imperial Chancellor." The Armament Inquiry Committee had "no right of control whatever," and it had been a great satisfaction to him during the past few weeks to see "how the heart of the whole Prussian nation is stirred as soon as the honour of the Army is affected. To preserve this Army, led by its King, against all attacks, and to prevent it from becoming the Parliamentary Army of which Count Yorck has spoken, is the passionate desire of every Prussian who is true to the Constitution."

On January 20 the Upper Chamber of the Diet of Alsace-Lorraine, consisting almost entirely of nominated and official members, carried a resolution expressing the opinion that the trouble at Zabern could have been prevented "if the military authorities had dealt promptly and adequately with the unworthy, insulting, and provocative behaviour of Lieutenant Forstner"; also that Colonel Reuter went far beyond his rights, and that guarantees must be given that such things should not occur again, and especially that the law should be respected absolutely by the military authorities. In the Reichstag (Jan. 24) the Chancellor, in reply to Social-Democratic and Radical interpellations, said that in civil disturbances the military could, as a rule, intervene only on the demand of the civil authorities, but that "the Prussian Constitution recognised expressly and in principle that in exceptional cases a demand from the civil authorities was not necessary," and that it reserved the subject for special legislation which, however, had never taken place. The Cabinet Order of 1820, which was embedded in the Service Orders of 1899, was undoubtedly binding on Colonel Reuter, but in view of the doubt whether it was in accordance with the Constitution and the general principles of law, the Emperor had ordered an inquiry, and the Service Orders would be brought into harmony with the result. It was not true that Germany was under sabre rule, for the Zabern case was the only one in which the provisions of the Order had been applied. Alsace-Lorraine could not flourish except under a calm, uniform, and just, but at the same time firm, policy. The attempts to create differences between North and South must be nipped in the bud. Not one of the Federal States could exist without the united Empire, for which their fathers had shed their blood in loyal comradeship, all with the same enthusiasm, the same devotion, and the same courage. The debate was now mainly carried on by the Social Democrats, who indulged in the usual invectives against monarchy and especially against the Crown Prince, and the House finally carried by a large majority a motion of the Centre party asking the Federal Council to see that the conditions of military intervention in police matters should be determined with uniformity and in a way securing the independence of the civil authority. A National Liberal motion was also carried, asking the Imperial Chancellor to inform the Reichstag of the result of the promised inquiry, and referring to a Committee of twenty-one members Bills proposed by the Socialists, the Alsatians, and the Radicals in regard to military powers and jurisdiction. The Government answered these motions the same day by an official communiqué, stating that it was not the practice of the Federal Council to discuss motions so introduced, and that "the Constitution excluded the Legislature from all share in any alteration of the military Service Orders." As regards the attacks of the Socialists on the Crown Prince, a journalist named Leuss was sentenced on March 5, to six months' imprisonment for an article entitled "Wilhelm der Letzte" in the Welt am Montag, in which he spoke of telegrams said to have been sent by the Crown Prince to General Deimling and Colonel Reuter as an unwarrantable interference with the course of justice in the Zabern affair, and described a farewell order issued by the Crown Prince to his regiment, in which he said that the highest joy of the soldier is to ride against the foe, as an outburst of bellicose feeling calculated to revive Republican ideas and to raise doubts whether the hereditary principle should not be abolished and Princes be pensioned off. The editor of the Socialist Vorwärts was also sentenced on March 6 to three months' imprisonment for a parody of the Crown Prince's farewell to his regiment. Another of the Prince's indiscretions was the sending of telegrams in July to the authors of Chauvinistic pamphlets which he described as "excellent"—one entitled "the Hour of Destiny," by Herr Frobenius, which called upon Germany to be prepared for a war in 1915 or 1916 against France, Russia and England, "who will not miss a favourable opportunity of attacking Germany," and the other by Professor Buchholz, inveighing against the "weak Governments" which had directed Germany since Bismarck and allowed democracy to make "frightful progress."

The decision of the military courts at Strasburg on the Zabern affair and the Chancellor's speech on the subject were followed by the resignation on January 29 of the Statthalter or Governor of Alsace-Lorraine, Count Wedel, and all the principal members of his Ministry. Count Wedel was succeeded on May 1 by the Prussian Minister of the Interior, Herr von Dallwitz, whose place in the Ministry was taken by a retired official, Herr von Löbell, formerly head of the office of the Imperial Chancellor and Prince Bülow's political manager. A new Army Order was also issued in April suppressing the ancient privileges under which Colonel Reuter had acted, but the new Statthalter refused in July to confirm in office the Burgomaster of Zabern, who had been re-elected by a large majority of the Town Council, and had defended the rights of civilians in the Strasburg trial. An agitation was now started by the Conservatives in Prussia for stronger action against all the border races. As regards the Danes the Minister of the Interior stated in the Budget Committee of the Prussian Diet on February 1 that the Law Officers had been instructed to keep a sharp control over the Danish Press in Schleswig-Holstein, and Danes from across the frontier were forbidden to go to the Danish club-houses on Prussian territory, even when not used for political agitation. Everything possible was being done to strengthen the German element in Schleswig-Holstein. German proprietors were assisted by the State, German libraries had been established, and German elementary high schools on the Danish model were started in order to check the emigration of young people across the border. Further, on May 26, the Chancellor, in reply to an interpellation signed by more than sixty members of the Upper House of the Prussian Diet accusing Denmark of undermining Prussian authority in Schleswig-Holstein, said he must admit that as a consequence of the excessive agitation against Germanism the situation in the north was unsatisfactory. Prussia was negotiating with Denmark on the question of the people who have no definite nationality, but would cling to the determination not to accept them as Prussian subjects (A.R., 1907, p. 294). The dreams of an incorporation with Denmark would never be realised. Among the Poles in Prussia, too, it was a bitter grievance that though sermons might be preached in the Polish language, the Communion might not be administered in Polish, and in a Roman Catholic Church in the suburb of Moabit in Berlin about seventy Polish children entered in procession after the Polish sermon and sang Polish hymns, upon which the police entered and with considerable effort cleared the church. Another Polish grievance was that the German Eastern Colonisation Society (Ostmarkenverein) whose object was to strengthen the German element in Posen and Silesia, had been trying to carry the war against the Poles into Austrian territory in Galicia by inciting the Ruthenian against the Polish workmen, and on February 25 the police raided the two chief Polish newspapers in Posen in order to discover evidence of the theft of documents quoted by them in proof of the charge against the Ostmarkenverein. Heated debates took place on the subject in the Prussian Diet, but no evidence of the alleged theft was discovered.

Important statements on Anglo-German relations were made to the Budget Committee of the Reichstag on February 4 by Grand-Admiral von Tirpitz and Herr von Jagow, the Foreign Secretary. The former said that from the technical point of view he had nothing to add to or subtract from his statement of 1913. The ratio of 16 to 10 offered by Great Britain was still acceptable to Germany if it referred to battleships only; but the idea of "a holiday year" could not be realised. Positive proposals had not yet reached Germany; if they did, they would certainly be carefully examined. The naval estimates of foreign Powers had grown much more rapidly than those of Germany. During the last five years her naval expenditure had increased by 2,750,000l., that of Great Britain by 10,800,000l., apart from the expected supplementary estimate of 3,000,000l., that of France by 6,700,000l., and that of Russia by 15,100,000l. Herr von Jagow next stated that the present German relationship with England was one of thorough mutual confidence. In both countries there had been an increasing feeling that they could work side by side on many points and that their interests met in many respects. The events in the Balkans and the negotiations in London had contributed much to this result, and people in Great Britain had been able to convince themselves that Germany was not pursuing any aggressive policy. On February 20, however, Grand-Admiral von Tirpitz stated during the debate on the Navy Estimates that it was "not only an economic and political necessity for Germany to have her ships of war abroad as well as at home, but a military necessity also." If in recent years the German Fleet had been concentrated in home waters, this was due "to circumstances which need not be discussed more closely," but he trusted they would be "more active," with their Navy abroad, and he reminded the House that the contemplated number of German ships abroad, i.e. eight large cruisers, had not yet been reached. On June 25, during the British Naval visit to Kiel, the German Emperor, after inaugurating two new locks for the Kiel Canal, which had been made two metres deeper and doubled in breadth, and had reduced the distance between Kiel and Wilhelmshafen from 500 nautical miles to eighty, went for the first time on board a British Dreadnought, the King George V., and hoisted his flag as a British Admiral; enthusiastic speeches were delivered in the Town Hall by Vice-Admiral Sir George Warrender and the President of the German Navy League, and the bluejackets of both nations made merry together ashore.

On the second reading of the Army Estimates a remarkable statement was made by the Prussian War Minister as to the manner in which the Army Law (A.R., 1913, p. 307) had been carried out. Between July and October they had to arrange for the accommodation of 60,000 more men and 21,000 more horses. There had been no difficulty whatever about the recruits. On the contrary, there were 38,000 men perfectly fit for service whom they could not take.... There were now only about 3,000 vacancies among some 30,000 officers, and he thought that all the vacancies would be filled within two years—or at the existing rate of competition much sooner. The Army Bill had created 10,000 new posts for non-commissioned officers. Six weeks after the Bill came into force there were only 4,000 vacancies left, and these would probably be filled within the year. There had been no difficulty about the purchase of remounts. The money voted for frontier fortifications had been duly spent, and there had been very little trouble about the supply of new accommodation for the troops. The health of the Army had been splendid during the past year. Although orders to manufacturers, etc., could not be given until July, everything had been ready so quickly that on October 6, 1913, five days after the new Law had come into force, all the new units were ready and perfectly equipped for war.

On January 13 the Reichstag discussed a petition of the German League for Women's Suffrage demanding that women should have the equal suffrage with men in the Reichstag elections and should be eligible for election themselves. In former years such petitions had been ignored, but this time the House decided to bring the petition to the cognisance of the Government as a compromise between a Social Democratic proposal that it should be submitted for consideration and a Conservative one that it should be ignored as heretofore, the Centre desiring to show sympathy with the movement without pledging themselves to radical changes. On January 15 the Budget Committee of the Reichstag rejected a Government proposal to grant an Imperial subsidy in aid of the preparations for the Olympic games.

The Reichstag was closed on May 20, the Socialists remaining silent in their seats, instead of leaving the House, as they had hitherto, while the other parties responded to the President's call for three cheers for the Emperor.

In February a private company composed of members of the leading industrial concerns of the Empire was formed at the instigation of the head of the Press Bureau of the German Foreign Office to "further German industrial prestige abroad," i.e. to supply the foreign Press with information favourable to Germany and German industrial enterprise. The sum of 12,500l. a year, the whole Secret Service Fund at the disposal of the Imperial Foreign Office for subsidising foreign papers, was added by the Government to the funds of the company.

In March, the Emperor William visited the Emperor Francis Joseph at Vienna, and afterwards the King of Italy at Venice. The chief feature of these meetings was the special favour shown by the German Emperor to Count Tisza, the Hungarian Prime Minister, with whom he had long conversations on Eastern affairs.

A discussion on Colonial reforms took place on February 18 in the Budget Committee of the Reichstag. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, Dr. Solf, said that after comparing the colonial administrations of the world he had found the British system the best suited to be a model for Germany, and he accordingly intended to strengthen the powers of the Colonial Governors and correspondingly to lighten the burden of the Colonial Office. Replying to a member who complained of the ill-treatment of the natives and the existence of forced labour, the Minister said that the Government was endeavouring to protect the natives, and had instructed the Colonial governors to abolish forced labour. The question was raised again in a full House shortly afterwards, when the Reichstag passed a resolution desiring the abolition of serfdom in German East Africa by January 1, 1920. The Government, on the other hand, issued a White Paper in March, saying that it would be a highly dangerous experiment to fix a date for the abolition. According to the German law every native born after December, 1905, is free, and those who are still serfs can purchase their freedom for a small sum, usually between thirty and forty rupees, which their masters are not allowed to prevent them from earning; more than 2,000 purchase their freedom every year. The number of serfs now in East Africa was estimated to be about 85,000, but it was believed that in fifteen years' time serfdom would be extinct. To abolish it at the date stated in the Reichstag resolution would cost 4,200,000 rupees (about 280,000l.) in compensation to the owners, and leave many serfs without the means of existence. These arguments apparently satisfied the Centre and the National Liberals, but the Social Democrats urged that the Colonies were merely a burden, and that the sooner they could be got rid of the better, as they were useless as homes for white men and contained hardly 25,000 whites altogether. The increase of their trade was only 3½ per cent. of the total of that of German trade, and was less than Germany's trade with Cape Colony and with England's Crown Colonies; most of their needs were supplied from England, and they were not wanted for emigration, for Germany had no surplus population and was always importing foreign workmen. Finally, the Colonies were administered in the interests of unscrupulous companies which were exterminating the natives.

The usual crop of espionage cases came up in the first half of the year. In July a German sergeant was sentenced to fifteen years' penal servitude and expulsion from the Army for corruption and betrayal of military secrets to the Russian military Attaché Colonel Bazaroff, who suddenly left Berlin when the sergeant was arrested. He was clerk in the Engineer Inspection Office, and had sold plans of the fortifications of Königsberg and other places in East Prussia to the Attaché.

Herr von Jagow, the Foreign Secretary, in the usual statement of German foreign policy in the Reichstag, on May 14, referred especially to the violent attacks made upon Germany in the Russian Press, which had naturally led the German Press to retaliate, but for this the German Government was not responsible. He knew of no real Russo-German antagonisms and "had reason to suppose" that the Russian Government was determined to maintain friendly relations. As to England the negotiations "were being conducted on both sides in the most friendly spirit, a spirit which in other matters also prevailed in Anglo-German relations." "An understanding which removed possibilities of friction" was also being arrived at with France.

When Austria-Hungary sent her ultimatum to Serbia the German Emperor was on his usual holiday trip in Norway. He was informed of the text of the ultimatum by the German Ambassador at Vienna, but did not think it necessary to return at once to Berlin, as both he and his Ministers and Ambassadors believed that Russia would not actively interfere and that England in any case would be neutral. He shared the indignation of the Austrians and Hungarians at the murder of their Crown Prince, and fully approved of the text of the ultimatum;[6] it was probably intended as a preliminary to war, but he thought the war would be localised, and if successful would remove from Austria-Hungary the danger of a "Slavonia Irredenta" (A.R., 1912, p. 338), which threatened her existence as a great European Power. It was not believed at St. Petersburg that he really wanted war,[7] and in the opinion of his Ministers at Berlin, the declaration of Austria-Hungary that she had no intention of seizing Serbian territory "would have a calming influence at St. Petersburg."[8] As, however, the situation became more threatening, the Emperor suddenly returned to Berlin on July 26, the day before the Serbian reply to the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum was delivered. On July 27, when Germany declined to accept the British proposal for a Conference on the ground that it would practically amount to a Court of Arbitration, she stated that "if Russia mobilised only in the South, Germany would not mobilise, but if she mobilised in the North, Germany would have to do so too."[9] As Russia would evidently have to mobilise in the North for a war against Austria-Hungary as well as against Germany, this showed that the Emperor William had now decided for war, and his subsequent acceptance of the principle of mediation between Austria and Russia by the four Powers,[10] and his assertion that he was "doing his very best both at Vienna and St. Petersburg to get the two Governments to discuss the situation directly with each other and in a friendly way"[11] were merely concessions to the British Government in the hope that it would be neutral. His bid for British neutrality (p. 177) was made two days after, and when it was refused Germany prepared at once to mobilise both against Russia and France, although negotiations were still going on between the Powers for a pacific issue, and Austria-Hungary had agreed to discuss with them even the basis of the conflict with Serbia.[12] On July 31 the German Chancellor informed the British Ambassador at Berlin that as the whole Russian Army and Fleet were being mobilised, Kriegsgefahr (danger of war) would be proclaimed by Germany at once, and mobilisation follow almost immediately.[13] When on the same day Russia issued orders for a general mobilisation, Germany addressed an ultimatum to the Russian Government demanding that the Russian forces should be demobilised, and that a reply should be given within twelve hours. This, of course, meant war, which was declared against Russia on August 1, and a last effort to secure British neutrality was made by Germany on the same day. The German Ambassador in London asked Sir E. Grey whether, if Germany gave a promise not to violate Belgian neutrality, England would engage to remain neutral, and he even suggested that the integrity of France and her Colonies might be guaranteed, to which Sir E. Grey replied that he "felt obliged to refuse definitely any promise on similar terms."[14] Germany then declared war against France (Aug. 3). The day before her armies, which had for some time been ready on the frontier, had marched into Luxemburg, the Chancellor declaring that this was not a hostile act, but was merely intended to insure against a possible attack of the French Army, and promising full compensation for any damage done.[15] Luxemburg protested against this violation of her neutrality, but, of course, without effect. On August 2 Germany invited Belgium to allow German troops to pass through her territory, in which case Germany would guarantee the possessions and independence of Belgium on the conclusion of peace, and pay an indemnity for any damage done by German troops. Belgium rejected this proposal on August 3. And while Germany, on August 4, "repeated most positively the formal assurance that even in the case of armed conflict with Belgium, Germany will, under no pretence whatever, annex Belgian territory," German troops entered Belgium and summoned Liège to surrender.[16] The German excuse for this violation of Belgian neutrality was that Germany had to advance into France "by the quickest and easiest way," and that "it was a matter of life and death for them, as if they had gone by the more southern route they could not have hoped, in view of the paucity of roads and the strength of the fortresses, to have got, through without formidable opposition, entailing great loss of time, which would have meant time gained by the Russians for bringing up their troops to the German frontier; rapidity of action was the great German asset, while that of Russia was an inexhaustible supply of troops." The British Ambassador having, in accordance with instructions from his Government, then demanded his passports, the German Secretary of State expressed "his poignant regret at the crumbling of his entire policy and that of the Chancellor, which had been to make friends with Great Britain and then, through Great Britain, to get closer to France." The Chancellor, on receiving the British Ambassador's farewell visit, complained that Great Britain was going to war "just for a word, neutrality, which in war time had so often been disregarded, just for a scrap of paper, on a kindred nation which desired nothing better than to be friends with her." All his efforts, he added, had now been rendered useless, and "the policy to which he had devoted himself since his accession to office had tumbled down like a house of cards." What Great Britain had done was "like striking a man from behind while he was fighting against two assailants," and he held her responsible for all the terrible events that might happen. When the news was circulated that England had declared war against Germany, the Berlin mob broke the windows of the British Embassy. On the following morning, August 5, the following message was delivered to the British Ambassador by one of the Emperor's aides-de-camp:—