515 
 C62 
 opy 1 
 
A REPLY 
 
 TO 
 
 Mr. Samuel Harden Church's Pamphlet 
 
 ON 
 
 "The American Verdict on the War 
 
 BY 
 
 ERNEST LUDWIG 
 
 Austro-Hungarian Consul in Cleveland 
 Author of "Austria-Hungary and the War", and other books 
 
 PRICE, 10 CENTS 
 
Cleveland, Ohio, April 23, 1915. 
 
 Mr. Samuel Harden Church, 
 
 President of the Carnegie Institute, 
 Pittsburgh, Pa. 
 
 Dear Sir: — 
 
 My attention was drawn to your pamphlet which is named 
 "The American Verdict on the War." I presume that the title was 
 applied by your publishers, as it does not appear from your letter to 
 Dr. Schaper, that the American people or Government had entrusted 
 you to pass a verdict on the war for either of the two — nor does it 
 appear that its contents were ratified by anybody except yourself 
 and possibly your publishers. Nevertheless, even as an individual 
 statement, it is a remarkable statement and calls forth a reply from 
 such as are directly or indirectly involved in several of your asser- 
 tions. 
 
 You say in your letter: "We are all going deeper than the 
 surface in our search for the truth." Permit me to point out here 
 a few assertions in your letter which, as fan as your person is 
 involved, certainly do not bear out the preceding statement. 
 
 I. "Well, we all know that Austria, away back in 1908 made 
 seizure of the two provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A thing 
 like that enrages the human spirit, and the brains of some men will 
 not act normally under such extreme provocation." This assertion 
 is based on surface knowledge only. Article XXV. of the Berlin 
 Convention, 1878, expressly stipulated that "Austria-Hungary will 
 occupy and rule the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina." In 
 handing over these provinces to Austria-Hungary the suzerainty 
 rights of the Sultan over them were — it is true — recognized, but 
 only to a very limited extent. The mandate which we received in 
 1878 to occupy the two provinces was unlimited as to terms and 
 subject to no conditions whatsoever. On December 24th, 1879, a 
 close tariff and trade union was established between the two 
 provinces and the dual monarchy. In all matters of trade, customs, 
 Austria-Hungary was to represent Bosnia and Herzegovina abroad. 
 Our currency, on tobacco, salt and gunpowder monopolies were 
 extended over the territory of the two provinces. The same is true 
 concerning the indirect taxation of beer, alcohol, sugar and other 
 articles, later on of the direct taxation. Austria-Hungary had the 
 exclusive right of mint in the two provinces, which, from olden 
 time, has always stood as the right of the ruler. Bosnia and 
 Herzegovina adopted our measures and weights. Our postal and 
 telegraph service was also extended over Bosnia and Herzegovina 
 in 1879. On November 13, 1881, a law was enacted introducing 
 
 0; if il 
 
 SEP 2 
 
military service in Bosnia and Herzegovina for the benefit of 
 Austria-Hungary. 
 
 What remained really to indicate the sovereign rights of the 
 Ottoman Porte? Two prerogatives, to wit: that on official Turkish 
 holidays the Green Flag of the Prophet was hoisted, together with 
 ours, on public buildings, and that the name of the Sultan was in- 
 cluded in the public prayers. 
 
 During the thirty years of her peaceful possessions and quasi- 
 ownership, Austria-Hungary invested hundreds of millions of dol- 
 lars in building churches, schools, railroads, roads, etc., etc., and has 
 transformed the two provinces into practically the most flourishing 
 countries in the Balkans, although they were ruined and desolate 
 in every respect, when she assumed charge of them in 1878. 
 
 The formal annexation in 1908 ended the Sultan's nominal 
 sovereignty and put a term to an anomalous situation which had 
 lasted thirty years, Austria-Hungary bearing all the responsibilities 
 but not the formal title of the owner. Why was the annexation 
 proclaimed and why did we not continue the former way of rule? 
 Because, in 1908, the Young Turks initiated a parliamentary regime 
 in Turkey and it would have created a very awkward situation and 
 no end of conflicts had Turkey, for instance, called upon the 
 Moslems in Bosnia- and Herzegovina to send delegates to the Parlia- 
 ment in Constantinople. The annexation of these provinces was a 
 perfectly harmless affair. No blood was shed, no harm was done 
 to anybody of the population which, far from objecting to it, sent 
 delegations to Vienna asking for a full incorporation into the Dual 
 Monarchy. Russia knew of it beforehand and gave her consent on 
 condition that we did not object to the opening of the Straits of 
 Constantinople to her battleships, etc. This was decided at a con- 
 ference of the respective representatives in the Castle of Buchlau, 
 Moravia. It is true this latter privilege was later objected td by 
 both France and England, but Russia's subsequent antagonism 
 against Austria-Hungary on this account, which finally led to the 
 formation of the Balkan league, was unjustified. As to Turkey, 
 which was the chiefly interested party, we made a regular bargain 
 with her, paying her an indemnity of fifty-four million crowns* for 
 the abandonment by the Sultan of a nudum jus sovereignty, just as 
 you did in the case of the Philippines. We also gave up our rights 
 to the Sandjak of Novi Bazar, which we had acquired through the 
 Berlin Convention, in 1878. The signatory powers of the Congress 
 of Berlin were formally notified and acquiesced. Servia, which had 
 no claim whatsoever to Bosnia and Herzegovina, was the only 
 power which remonstrated, but was finally, in 1909, admonished by 
 
 *That is, we paid the Sultan one-eighth million crowns for the prayers 
 said on his behalf each year for thirty years during which the occupation 
 had lasted That is not such a bad record! Is it? 
 
all the Great Powers of Europe to keep peace with the Dual Mon- 
 archy and to live with her henceforth as a good neighbor. She 
 pledged her solemn word that she would do so. She has never kept 
 her pledge. My book on "Austria-Hungary and War" discusses 
 these alleged historical, ethnographical, etc., claims of Servia, over 
 the two provinces so extensively that it is unnecessary for me to 
 repeat them here. 
 
 You must admit, if you are unbiased, as you claim to be, that 
 your statement is unfounded both in substance and in fact. 
 
 II. "In May, 1914, the Austrian Crown Prince went into 
 these provinces. The people looked upon him as an invader, a 
 usurper, a conqueror, a tyrant, and he was assassinated. It was a 
 detestable act, condemned and abhorred by just men everywhere. I 
 condemn it, detest it, and abhor it. But it was the penalty which 
 any man would pay who would flagrantly invade a conquered province 
 under like circumstances. There is always a hot-head ready to 
 murder a tyrant, and a tyrant is one who makes himself a conqueror 
 for his own aggrandizement. In the eyes of those subjugated people, 
 the Crozvn Prince was a tyrant." 
 
 These statements stand in flagrant contradiction to facts. The 
 people of Bosnia and Herzegovina certainly did not look upon their 
 Crown Prince as an invader. Read Chapter III. of "Austria-Hun- 
 gary and the War," and particularly the final address of prosecuting 
 attorney at the Sarajevo trial. Permit me to say that we know our 
 own country better than foreigners do, and if you say that the 
 people saw in the Crown Prince an invader, a usurper, a conqueror, 
 a tyrant, you make so many assertions which have no foundations 
 whatsoever. Can you really claim that you are going deeper than 
 the thinnest surface in your search for the truth! You must gather 
 your knowledge from the evidence of some fanatic Servians, who 
 may have befriended you in order to gain your support, because 
 the White Paper which you mention does not supply evidence for 
 your statement. There were malcontents in Bosnia and Herzegovina 
 — just as there are in your country and, in fact, everywhere, who 
 do not sympathize with government or the administration, and in 
 our case, they were in a strong minority. I refer to "Austria- 
 Hungary and the War" and to the Austro-Hungarian Red Book to 
 show how in Bosnia and Herzegovina these malcontents have been 
 artificially fostered by Servian intrigues. Our evidence — I think — 
 is ample and conclusive. 
 
 But to facilitate your task in finding some of this evidence I 
 will point out here some passages contained in the Austro-Hungarian 
 Red Book. 
 
 (a) In the report of Baron Giesl to Count Berchtold, under 
 No. VI, you find this language: "Since the annexation crisis, the 
 relations between the Dual Monarchy and Servia have been strained 
 
by the jingoism and animosity of the latter and by an effective 
 propaganda for the "Great Servian" cause, carried on in those parts 
 of our country which are inhabited by Serbs. Servia's successes 
 in the Balkan wars have intensified that jingoism until it now man- 
 ifests itself at times in outbreaks of frantic passion bordering upon 
 madness." 
 
 "I affirm it as an established axiom that Servia's policy has but 
 one aim, namely, the detachment from the Dual Monarchy of all 
 territories inhabited by South-Slavs and the eventual, destruction 
 of that Monarchy as a great pozver. Nobody who has spent a week 
 in the discharge of his duties in this political atmosphere can ques- 
 tion the truth of my assertion." 
 
 "I shall pass over the absurd accusations raised on the occasion 
 of Hartwig's death, utterances verging on madness, which the 
 London Times qualified as "raging mad." Nor shall I dwell upon 
 the mendacious press campaign zvhich endeavors to confirm the 
 Servian people in their conviction that the government of Austria- 
 Hungary, as well as its representatives, are outlazved. Terms like 
 "murderers," "rascals," or "infamous Austrians," were some of the 
 ornamental by-words applied to us. 
 
 "Hartwig's death, which meant a profound bereavement to 
 the Servian political world, has been followed by a fanatic cult of 
 the departed. This sentiment, however, was due not only to grati- 
 tude for his assistance in the past, but to a sense of apprehension 
 as to the future. Every effort zvas made to please Russia by a 
 display of slave-like servility, in order to secure that country's 
 good-zvill for the future." 
 
 (b) Read No. VIII of the Red Book in its entirety. It con- 
 tains Count Berchtold's instructions to the Imperial and Royal 
 Ambassadors at Berlin, Rome, Paris, London, St. Petersburg, and 
 Constantinople, concerning our note to Servia. 
 
 (c) Read the Memoir of the Red Book under XIX. 
 
 III. "Austria at once assumed to hold Servia responsible for 
 this murder, and dispatched an ultimatum containing ten drastic 
 conditions which were more exacting upon the dignity of Servia 
 than any demand that was ever before made by one nation upon 
 another. Yet Servia yielded to all except in parts as to Articles 5 
 and 6. In Article 5 the Imperial scheme of Pan-Germanism zvas 
 developed — insidiously broached, it is true, but still it was put before 
 Servia as a definite part of the plan of Austro-German expansion. 
 Servia was required "to accept the collaboration in Servia of repre- 
 sentatives of the Austro-Hungarian government in the suppression 
 of the subversive movement directed against the territorial integrity 
 of the (Austrian) monarchy." 
 
 Concerning these statements it can easily be seen that your 
 
knowledge is gathered from the daily press more than from the 
 perusal of the various diplomatic papers. If Austria-Hungary 
 assumed at once to hold Servia responsible for this murder of the 
 Crown Prince, she did so for good cause and based on evidence. 
 Read No. IX of the Red Book (Count Berchtold to Count Mens- 
 dorf) and particularly this passage: "Until today (July 23, 1914; 
 the murder occurred on June 28th) the Servian government, in spite 
 of much notorious circumstantial evidence pointing to Belgrade, has 
 failed to do anything of that sort {id est: proceeding against the 
 Servian accomplices of the murderers in Belgrade), but even has 
 endeavored to efface the existing traces." 
 
 Our demands on Servia were commensurate to what she had 
 done against us not only by inspiring and promoting the murder 
 of the Crown Prince, because that was merely an individual in- 
 stance of her hostility, but during all the past years, in fact ever 
 since the ascension of King Peter to the blood-stained throne of 
 Servia. 
 
 In No. X, being a report of Count Mensdorf to Count Berch- 
 told, you can read that Sir Edward Grey was quite willing to regard 
 the whole affair as concerning "solely Austria-Hungary and Servia." 
 In No. XIII you can read that Mons. Bienvenu Martin, representing 
 the French Foreign Office at that time, "was prepared to say at 
 the outset tharthe French Government shares our opinion that our 
 controversy with Servia concerned only Vienna and Belgrade." 
 
 Servia did not yield to our demands. Her acceptance of some 
 of them in the form as they were accepted, was a sham acceptance. 
 We know our Servian neighbor from our past experience and we 
 knew that only the unconditional acceptance of these terms would 
 insure a cessation of her underground machinations against the 
 safety and existence of the Monarchy. See No. XXXIX of the 
 Red Book (Count Berchtold to Count Mensdorf). "In view of the 
 fact that the Servian Government was fully aware that the uncon- 
 ditional acceptance of our demands alone could satisfy us, the 
 Servian tactics are easily fathomed. Servia has accepted, with 
 various reservations, several of our demands in order to deceive 
 public opinion in Europe, confident that she never would be called 
 upon to carry out her promise. In your conversation with Sir 
 Edward Grey, you will lay particular stress upon the circumstances 
 that the general mobilization of the Servian army zvas ordered for 
 July the 25th, 3 o'clock P. M., while the reply to our note zvas handed 
 in shortly before the expiration of the stipulated time, a fezv minute's 
 before 6 o'clock." From this alone it can be seen, that Servia's 
 answer was made in bad faith. 
 
 Your statement that in Article 5 the Imperial ( !) scheme of 
 Pan-Germanism ( !) was developed sounds so utterly absurd, to 
 anyone who even has a slight knowledge of conditions in Europe, 
 
that one must wonder how you could assume to answer these ninety- 
 three German professors, known all over the world as the representa- 
 tives of thorough and conscientious research." Which Imperial 
 scheme do you mean? Austria-Hungary's, Germany's? Clause 5 
 of our demands purported the establishment in Belgrade of a 
 Governmental Information Bureau, such as Russia had in Paris and 
 ether governments mutually entertain in European capitals. 
 
 As to Article 6, Servia served the same demand on Hungary 
 in 1868-70 in connection with the murder of Prince Obrenovic 
 (pp. 64-65-66-67 of "Austria-Hungary and the War"). Hungary 
 then thought this was the most natural demand to make under the 
 circumstances and at once accepted it. Nobody even thought of 
 considering this as an encroachment of Hungary's suzerainty. We, 
 in 1868-70, had nothing to conceal to the world. Servia in 1914 
 had a lot to conceal. She was afraid of the truth of her guilt be- 
 coming common property. 
 
 IV. Equally absurd is your contention that "already Austria 
 had ravished Servia of two of her precious jewels and was laying 
 her plans now to despoil her of more." I presume that you think of 
 Bosnia and Herzegovina, when you say her precious jewels." Servia 
 has never owned either of the two, never has ruled over them — 
 even for a day — as it is exhaustively shown in Chapter IV of 
 "Austria-Hungary and the War," concerning Servia's claims over 
 Bosnia and Herzegovina. 
 
 Czar Dusan, who evolved the idea of a Greater Servian Empire, 
 has never ruled over Bosnia and Herzegovina. He had invaded 
 these provinces twice and was both times defeated, once in 1353 by 
 Stephan Kotro,manovics (Stephan II) chief Zsupan of Bosnia, and 
 the second time most decisively by King Louis the Great of Hungary. 
 On the other hand, has Servia for many centuries been a vassal of 
 the Kingdom of Hungary. 
 
 V. "It is well that we should keep in mind the avowed object 
 of Germany and Austria in making this significant demand upon 
 Servia, in order that we may be able to avoid the error of assuming 
 that the Austrian war on Servia was merely a punitive expedition 
 on account of the assassination of the Crown Prince of Austria. 
 When these minatory conditions were published, Russia, as one of 
 the great powers of Europe, naturally felt that she had a historical 
 basis, and she did emphatically claim a right to a voice in determining 
 whether the sovereignty of the kingdom of Servia should be per- 
 manently impaired. Germany well knew that an insistence upon 
 this condition would make a general war inevitable; yet she pro- 
 claimed her insistence from the housetops, and defied Russia to 
 interfere." 
 
 I have found eight particular instances in our Red Book in 
 
which Austria-Hungary, through her authorized representatives, had 
 emphatically declared to Russia, or the European Powers that our 
 action did not mean aggression, but self-defense and self-preserva- 
 tion, and that we did not contemplate conquest of Servian territory 
 or destruction of Servian independence. We desire to obtain satis- 
 faction for the past and guarantee for the future only." See in No. 
 XVI, Count Szapary to Count Berchtold ; XVIII, Count Berchtold 
 to Count Szapary; XXVI, Count Berchtold to Count Szapary; 
 XXXII, Count Berchtold to Count Ezapary; XXXVIII, Count 
 Berchtold to Count Szogneny ; XLVII, Count Szapary to Count 
 Berchtold ; L, Count Berchtold to Count Szapary, and LV, Count 
 Szapary to Count Berchtold. 
 
 Your statement that Russia naturally felt that she had such a 
 historical right as you state, is a clear proof of your strong bias 
 Your statement implies that Russia had a right to interfere with 
 Austria-Hungary, but Austria-Hungary none to interfere with 
 Servia and, furthermore, that Germany should have interfered 
 with Austria-Hungary to avoid war, but that it was not the duty 
 of France and England to see that Russia should not interfere with 
 Austria-Hungary. 
 
 Russia, in taking up the cudgels for Servia in a local difference 
 between the latter country and Austria-Hungary, treated Servia as 
 her vassal. We naturally could not suffer that any state on our 
 borders should voluntarily or involuntarily become a vassal of the 
 Great Russian Empire as such a situation would have meant a con- 
 stant menace to ourselves. Russia's attempts to forbid us to settle 
 our differences with Servia were tantamount to curtailing our status 
 as a Great Power, had we yielded. You seem to think that this was 
 entirely right on the part of Russia, but that it was entirely wrong 
 on our part to undertake anything whereby Servia's sovereignty 
 might have been impaired — in your opinion. I do not say "Russia's 
 opinion," because Russia fully knew what she had in mind. She 
 did not bother about Servia's sovereignty. She merely sought a 
 pretext for a war of conquest. She reckoned that time had come 
 to destroy the Austro-Hungarian monarchy and enrich herself with 
 the spoils. She was willing to pay some price to her Servian hench- 
 man and brother in crime. 
 
 If Germany proclaimed "her insistence" as you say, to fight if 
 Russia intervened, she did so for perfectly good and honest reasons. 
 She was bound by treaty to Austria-Hungary and knew that she 
 would have to fight, if Russia intervened. In emphatically declaring 
 that she would not shirk her duties as Austria-Hungary's partner, she 
 thought that Russia and the rest of Russia's allies could be restrained. 
 Had Sir Edward Grey honestly wanted to settle matters peace- 
 fully, he could have done it very simply by impressing upon Russia 
 
and France to keep out of the local imbroglio between Servia and 
 Austria-Hungary. 
 
 Today we know that England had engineered this world-war 
 by bringing about the secret British-French entente, secret British- 
 Russian entente, British-Japanese treaty and secret British-Belgian 
 military understanding. Consequently Sir Edward Grey could not 
 and did not honestly mean a peaceful settlement, when he sug- 
 gested his plan of a conference. 
 
 VI. As regards your statement concerning Article 6, which 
 you assert contained an "unprecedented condition that Austrian 
 jurists should sit in the Servian Court" — this is again unfounded 
 both in substance and fact. We merely asked that " Austro-Hun- 
 garian officials should be admitted to co-operate in the preliminary 
 police investigation which was to seek out and collect data for the 
 judicial inquiry." See the Enclosure to XXXIV, in the Austro- 
 Hungarian Red Book. 
 
 VII. What you say about Servia's candid offer to hold further 
 conversations on the subject or to refer the matter to The Hague 
 Court or to the Great Powers of Europe, is again not borne out by 
 facts. You assume that Servia was candid in all her doings, yet 
 could she have easily avoided the whole imbroglio and the whole 
 world-war by simply abstaining from some of the following activi- 
 ties : Systematic promotion of anti-Austro-Hungarian sentimenjt 
 both in her own country and in our country; organization of open 
 and secret societies to promote an anti-Austro-Hungarian propa- 
 ganda, sending of murderers to our country who killed or tried 
 to kill our Governors, Generals, Archdukes (I refer to the murderous 
 attempts on the Banus of Crotia, Baron Skerlecz ; the Crotian Com- 
 m'ssioner, Dr. von Cuvay; Military Governor of Bosnia, Baron 
 Varesanin, etc., etc.) ; the entire Greater Servian propaganda which 
 with her other doings was in direct violation of her pledge given 
 to the Great Powers in 1909 to live as a good neighbor with the 
 Dual Monarchy. 
 
 The answer why our Servian differences could not have been 
 submitted to The Hague Court you find in Chapter II of "Austria- 
 Hungary and the War." We might ask you the same question: 
 Why did your country not submit the "Maine question" to The 
 Hague Court, before going to war against Spain? We had at least 
 as good a reason to go to war against Servia as you had against 
 Spain. Our country was peacefully inclined to the last and I refer 
 you here to No. LI of the Red Book, showing that even as late as 
 July 31st Count Berchtold issued instructions to our Ambassadors 
 in St. Petersburg and London "to thank the Secretary of State 
 warmly for the communication made by Herr von Tschirschky and 
 to express our readiness to consider Sir Edward Grey's proposition 
 
to mediate between us and Servia despite the changes brought about 
 in the situation by Russia's mobilization." 
 
 In view of what you dare to assert, that "Germany has not 
 dared to publish her correspondence with Austria and that Austria 
 has not dared to publish her correspondence with Germany," this 
 statement of our State Secretary directly referring to the German 
 Representative's activities in behalf of peace as late as July 31st, 
 must come to you as an evidently unwelcome revelation, as it 
 throws overboard all your unneutral and biased theories concerning 
 the world-war. You realize, of course, that each government in 
 these diplomatic papers publishes the correspondence of the Foreign 
 office and the national Ambassadors only, the German White Book 
 containing in addition a direct correspondence between Emperor 
 William, the Czar of Russia, the King of England, and Prince 
 Henry of Prussia. 
 
 It is Russia which has assiduously refused to make a peaceful 
 settlement possible. In the first interview of our Ambassador and 
 Mr. Sazanow (reported in No. XIV of the Red Book on July 24) 
 you find this attitude clearly illustrated. Count Szapary says at 
 the end: "In spite of the comparative calmness of the Minister's 
 manner, his attitude was throughout one of negation and antagon- 
 ism." This same attitude you will find illustrated in most of the 
 subsequent interviews as reported in the correspondence of our 
 Red Book. They strongly evidence the desire of Russian Govern- 
 ment to gain time only. Thus, for instance, you find this tendency 
 expressed in XXI and XL of the Red Book. 
 
 Our position with reference to peaceful settlement you find 
 best expressed in Count Berchtold's telegram to Count Mensdorff, 
 July 28 (reported in XLI) wherein it is stated: "Inasmuch as Sir 
 Edward Grey is desirous to serve the cause of European peace, he 
 certainly will meet zvith no opposition from us. But he should 
 realise that the peace of Europe ivould not be preserved, if Great 
 Powers stood behind Servia and assured her impunity. Suppose, 
 even, that we agreed to attempt such a compromise, Servia as a re- 
 sult would only be encouraged to persevere in her old tactics — a 
 situation which would once more endanger peace in a very short 
 time." 
 
 VIII. In a later connection you say this: "Returning to the 
 German White Book we read that after Austria had attacked 
 Servia, Russia began to mobilize her army." Here you find your- 
 self again at variance with facts. Servia issued her mobilization 
 order three hours before delivering her answer to our note on 
 July 26th. Servian troops began to attack the Hungarian frontier 
 before we had declared war. See No. XL Our mobilization against 
 Servia was proclaimed July 29th. Our general mobilization on 
 August 1st. If you will carefully reread the Czar of Russia's tele- 
 
 10 
 
gram to His Majesty Kaiser Wilhelm II, of July 30th, you will 
 find therein the following message: "I thank you from my heart 
 for your quick reply. I am sending tonight Tatisheff (Russian 
 honorary aide to the Kaiser) with instructions. The military measures 
 now taking form were decided upon five days ago." This telegram is 
 included in the German White Paper. It is clear, therefore, that 
 according to this official Russian admission — for who was better 
 qualified to make such an admission than the Czar himself — Russia 
 began her military mobilization measures on July 25th. We know 
 of course, today, from other evidence, that Russia began the mobili- 
 zation of her Siberian army corps shortly after the murder of our 
 Crown Prince. 
 
 IX. This is what you say further down: "For Austria is only 
 a ramshackle empire, bound together by a rope of sand, not able 
 to assimilate various races into one homogeneous nation." This 
 statement betrays two things on your part: your total ignorance of 
 matters concerning the Dual Monarchy and the origin of your source 
 from where you slavishly quote, to wit : Lloyd George's speech on 
 "Austria's ramshackle empire," which was published in the daily 
 press. Assuming that this speech was really made, I would like to 
 draw your attention to the rather remarkable fact that this "ram- 
 shackle empire" still gives a good account of itself both in a military 
 way and economically, that is financially. In fact, a much better 
 account in both ways than England ! We had to hold off the im- 
 mense armies of Russian millions and we have held them off, relying 
 on our own strength alone. Can the British say as much for them- 
 selves, who have bought hirelings from all over the world to do the 
 fighting for them while their sons play cricket and football at home ! 
 Do you call a country a "ramshackle empire" which raised three and 
 one-half billion crowns in a week among its own people, as we did 
 in November last, and raised within the very first days of the war 
 nearly a million volunteers — that is men who, under the law, were 
 not liable to any kind of military service; whereas it took the famous 
 Kitchener army of a million volunteers eight months — not yet to 
 materialize. That is undoubtedly also a record. Although Austria- 
 Hungary today is surrounded by a myriad of enemies enlisted for 
 England's selfish purposes, we have the strongest possible confidence 
 that she and Germany will come out as the ultimate victors. The 
 rope of sand zvhich you mention is really a golden bond of fealty 
 which has held together our glorious monarchy for far more cen- 
 turies than the United States is in existence. The history of the 
 common past and common traditions have welded all our various 
 nationalities together in a much firmer union than England and 
 Ireland, much firmer than both you, Mr. Lloyd George and our 
 uniformed ill-wishers would apparently like to have it. Austria- 
 Hungary's historical mission in the past has been one of preserving 
 
 11 
 
the peculiarities, the culture, the language of each of her motley 
 nationalities. The Dual Monarchy, I might say, embodies the 
 principle of how various races can be kept together in' a political 
 union without interfering with their racial differences. "This 
 principle of political assimilation" — as our distinguished country- 
 man, Count Albert Apponyi, expressed himself some time ago — "re- 
 minds one of the Romans, who gave the right of Roman citizenship 
 to the provincials and through that procedure succeeded in creating 
 a strong Roman spirit in the Gauls in Spain and so on." Austria- 
 Hungary's political structure affords these various nationalities a 
 heightened degree of protection from foreign enemies. It also 
 supplies them with greater possibilities for economic advance, and 
 for the conclusion of more favorable treaties of commerce, etc. 
 It benefits them, in short, with all the attributes of a great Power. 
 Thus the people of a possibly lower type of culture by being politi- 
 cally affiliated with those representing a higher type of civilization, 
 enjoy a greater degree of safety than if they would be organized 
 in a "mass of small racial principalities" unable to resist the de- 
 vouring appetites of the greater neighbors. 
 
 It is not at all true that we have stifled the individual aspirations 
 of our various nationalities, as our enemies, sometimes charge. What 
 is true is that we have not encouraged movements which endangered 
 the safety and existence of the monarchy. That was natural and, 
 I am quite sure, you would not encourage them either if they would 
 endanger the safety and existence of your country. 
 
 Let me draw your attention in this connection to Russia — which 
 since the beginning of the war, part of your magazine writers and 
 others, yourself included — welcome as a champion of the smaller 
 races and weaker nations. Russia in ruthlessly applying her Pan- 
 Russian theories to life, has simply tried to bring down everything 
 to the Russian level. Her whole history shows it and I defy any 
 adverse critics to prove their contrary assertions that she has not 
 oppressed the Finns in Finland, the Germans in her provinces in 
 Kurland, Esthland, Livland, the Poles in Poland, and above all, 
 the Ruthenians in Ukrainia. Is it not true that she has stamped 
 out the language of these latter, a people of thirty to thirty-five 
 millions, proclaiming that it was no language at all, but merely a 
 bastard-dialect of Russian? With all her might she has tried to 
 wipe out the Polish element and I think you, with a few million of 
 splendid Polish-Americans in your midst should, more than others, 
 appreciate the magnitude of Russia's crime in the latter's attempts 
 to wipe out a higher type of civilization than her own, Anybody 
 who admires freedom, justice and the rights of smaller nations, 
 after the proclaimed pattern of Sir Edward Grey, must certainly 
 acknowledge that Austria-Hungary has not, either forcibly or other- 
 
 12 
 
wise, Germanized her various nationalities, which, Russia in her 
 place, would certainly have done. 
 
 Austria-Hungary's mission in the past has been that of being 
 a bulwark of western Europe and Occidental Christianity against 
 the brutal, material invasion from the Orient, and against all Oriental 
 influences endangering what we call Occidental civilization. 
 
 If at times dissatisfaction has been voiced by isolated fractions 
 of our nationalities, this was local only and due to our adoption of 
 too lenient methods. We also, in a few instances, may have earned 
 ingratitude where recognition was merited. But do not overrate 
 these instances and do not underrate the cohesive strength of the 
 Monarchy. Remember that even H. Adams Gibbons, who is a cham- 
 pion of the Allies' cause, says in his "New Map of Europe," "The 
 Austro-Hungarian Empire has been founded upon sound political 
 and economic principles which far transcend a single life or a 
 dynasty." 
 
 X. In regard to the alleged German atrocities in Belgium 
 permit me to draw your attention to the fact that our country de- 
 clared war on Belgium for the atrocities of Belgian civilians against 
 Austro-Hungarian non-combatants. This is what the declaration 
 of war contained in No. LXVII of the Austro-Hungarian Red Book 
 says : "In view of the recently established fact that Austrian and 
 Hungarian subjects resident in Belgium have, under the eyes of the 
 Royal authorities, been treated in a manner contrary to the most 
 primitive laws of humanity, and inadmissible toward subjects of a 
 hostile State, Austria-Hungary is necessarily compelled to break off 
 diplomatic relations and considers herself from now on in a state 
 of war with Belgium." 
 
 The balance of your remarks concerns Germany more directly 
 than Austria-Hungary and I leave it, therefore, to others better 
 qualified than I to answer you. 
 
 From the above excerpts one would, however, have to come 
 to the conclusion, that in launching your pamphlet, you were not 
 sufficiently prepared to meet the issues; in other words, you are 
 making your conclusions in a superficial way, based on surface 
 knowledge. I am no German, but as far as! I know Germans, I 
 know that there is nothing which they more deprecate than assumed 
 judgment based on surface knowledge. Your statements concern- 
 ing the German issues contain, I am afraid, nothing but a bundle 
 of errors, and I could well understand if these conscientious German 
 professors would leave your pamphlet without reply. 
 
 I do not know for what you stand in this war. From various 
 statements of your pamphlet I gained the impression that you must 
 have fallen a comparatively easy prey to the will-o'-the-wisp and 
 fancy stories of some reporters. So it came that you can believe 
 that unhappy, ignorant Servia could be the champion of individual 
 
 13 
 
freedom and civilization and you can believe that Austria-Hungary 
 robbed her of her two precious jewels, usurping her visionary rights 
 over Bosnia and Herzegovina. Great as our admiration is for 
 American achievements on the field of practical sciences, we have 
 at times had occasion to be surprised at the somewhat superficial 
 knowledge of European history on the part of seemingly well in- 
 formed authors. Now, during these terrible months of war, more 
 than ever ! This may be why some of your representative Americans 
 have not been able to grasp this European war-situation. This is 
 also why you seem constantly to ignore Hungary in speaking of the 
 Monarchy as Austria, although you should know that the Monarchy 
 is dual, consisting of two independent States ! 
 
 Of course, we know that Americans pride themselves on their 
 belief in individual freedom. They say that England and her allies 
 are the champions of this individual freedom, whereas in Austria- 
 Hungary and Germany, individual freedom — so they think — is sup- 
 pressed. What a curious mistake this is! Germany and Austria- 
 Hungary — it is true — do not believe in individual utilitarianism. 
 We do not believe that individual pleasure and individual happiness 
 are all that human beings should exclusively strive for. We believe 
 in organized, efficient work of all individuals for the common wel- 
 fare of all. We believe in subordinating your craving for individual 
 success and pleasure to the general efforts of all to improve our 
 higher ideal* of culture. England is the land of conventionalism. 
 That is why Bernard Shaw will never be appreciated in England. 
 To call England the champion of individual freedom, when each 
 individual in England has to subordinate himself to the conventional 
 ideas of his party or his set, seems at least out of place. The ques- 
 tion is whether your country has to an appreciable extent adopted 
 this English conventional freedom of the individual or not. I 
 cannot believe it. I wish that you have not and should not. 
 
 There is another thing that I may be permitted to say. That 
 the Carnegie Peace Institute could not prevent the war is deplorab'e, 
 but excusable. The greatness of the task surpassed its strength. 
 Although it extended its activities all over the civilized earth, the 
 work undertaken was still in its infancy. But more deplorable, both 
 from our and from the American point of view, seem^ to be that 
 your Institute cannot stop the huge exportation of man-killing 
 weapons to the European battlefields. Through the courtesy of your 
 Institute I receive your periodical publications. From time to time 
 I have read about the denunciation by some of your representative 
 members, of Krupp and Creuzot, Skoda or Armstrong, etc., that 
 the driving out of business of one or both or all of these firms 
 would be a great step towards peace, etc. And what is the situation 
 today? There is probably not one firm in the world that manu- 
 factures more man-killing weapons for the armies in the field than 
 
 14 
 
the Bethlehem Steel Co. and its affiliates. We are fully aware of 
 the legal status of this question about the shipment of guns and 
 ammunition. We know it is not technically unneutral to do so. 
 It is the fact that your own country is the largest supplier of this 
 war-material, that hundreds of thousands of our own immigrants 
 are practically forced to earn their daily bread in this wholesale 
 slaughter-manufacture, that they have to supply their hands' labor 
 in the manufacturing of these weapons intended for the killing of 
 their own brothers and cousins across the sea, and last but not least, 
 that your Carnegie Institute has done nothing towards the inhibition 
 of this unholy business, is, in fact, acquiescing in it, as if it would 
 have no concern whatsoever in it — these are the things which make 
 one ponder and lose faith in the sincerity of your Institute's peace 
 propaganda ! 
 
 These are a few ideas which occurred to me in reading your 
 pamphlet. 
 
 I do not wish you to believe that I mean offense in writing you. 
 Nothing is farther from my mind. I assure you there is nothing: 
 personal in my remarks to you, although I naturally must resent 
 some of your unjustified remarks and slurs cast upon my country 
 and that of our allies. I am addressing you this letter merely as a 
 matter of duty to my countrymen and to myself. A neglect to refute 
 attacks of this kind made in public, gives sometimes rise to misin- 
 pretation. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 ERNEST LUDWIG, 
 Consul for Austria-Hungary. 
 
 15 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 015 900 862 9 
 
 ^ 
 
 Published and distributed 
 by the 
 German-American Literary Defense Committee, 
 
 150 Nassau Street, New York. 
 
Holl 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 015 900 862 9