He apparently disagrees with the idea of "the power of a Ruling House, the
dynastic idea," but stands up for "a National State, the democratic idea."
That in itself seems to indicate that he is in favour of the destruction of
Austria and its substitution by new states, built according to the
principle of nationality. He admittedly disagrees with the views of Vienna
and Budapest, and criticises Germany's alliance with Austria, probably
knowing, as a far-sighted and well-informed politician, that
Austria-Hungary cannot possibly survive this war.

Prince Lichnowsky frankly admits that the murder of the Archduke Francis
Ferdinand was a mere pretext for Vienna, which in fact had resolved on an
expedition against Serbia soon after the second Balkan war by which she
felt herself humiliated. In scathing terms he denounces the Triple Alliance
policy and thinks it a great mistake that Germany allied herself with the
"Turkish and Magyar oppressors." And though he says that it was Germany
which "persisted that Serbia must be massacred," he makes it quite clear
that it was Vienna that led the conspiracy against Europe, since on all
questions Germany "took up the position prescribed to her by Vienna." The
policy of espousing Austria's quarrels, the development of the
Austro-German Alliance into a pooling of interests in all spheres, was "the
best way of producing war." The Balkan policy of conquest and strangulation
"was not the German policy, but that of the Austrian Imperial House." What
better testimony is required to prove that Austria was not the blind tool,
but the willing and wilful accomplice of Germany?



III