The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915 - What Americans Say to Europe by Various
page 8 of 499 (01%)
page 8 of 499 (01%)
|
Paper," and the Belgian "Gray Paper," and the purpose of this article is
to discuss what judgment an impartial and dispassionate court would render upon the issues thus raised and the evidence thus submitted. Primarily such a court would be deeply impressed not only by what the record as thus made up discloses, _but also by the significant omissions of documents known to be in existence_. The official defense of England and Russia does not apparently show any failure on the part of either to submit all of the documents in their possession, _but the German "White Paper" on its face discloses the suppression of documents of vital importance, while Austria has as yet failed to submit any of the documentary evidence in its possession_. We know from the German "White Paper"--even if we did not conclude as a matter of irresistible inference--that many important communications passed in this crisis between Germany and Austria, and it is probable that some communications must also have passed between those two countries and Italy. Italy, despite its embarrassing position, owes to the world the duty of a full disclosure. What such disclosure would probably show is indicated by her deliberate conclusion that her allies had commenced an _aggressive_ war, which released her from any obligation under the Triple Alliance. The fact that communications passed between Berlin and Vienna, the text of which has never been disclosed, is not a matter of conjecture. Germany admits and asserts as part of her defense that she faithfully exercised her mediatory influence with Austria, but not only is such mediatory influence not disclosed by any practical results of such mediation, but the text of these vital communications is still kept in |
|