ATTEMPTS AT CONCLUDING PEACE
229
bring about important results. We knew that at that time the situation of Austria-Hungary was precarious in every respect, and we hoped that our politicians at home would attach the same importance as we did to the events in question. These hopes of ours were justified when, at the end of April, we came into possession of the first manifesto of the Czech League which displayed any considerable degree of determination. This manifesto, which was issued on April 14, 1917, while not actually opposing the Empire, nevertheless demanded that Austria should deal with the most urgent questions involving ideas of democracy, the Parliamentary system, and the revision of the Constitution on the lines implied by the self-determination of nations. It was clear that the wording of this manifesto had been prompted by the events in Russia.
I had heard on good authority that the Austrian Parliament was to be definitely convened for May 30, 1917, and as I wished to prevent any repetition of the previous political mistakes at home, I sent the following message to Prague in the second half of April 1917, after consultation with Masaryk:
In connection with the successes which we have achieved here, especially the note to Wilson, our work in Russia with Milyukov, as well as our work in Italy, America, and elsewhere, we urgently draw your attention to the fact that Austria is exerting every effort to save herself. Intrigues are of daily occurrence, and they are a source of much danger. We are almost powerless against them. Great sacrifices have been made by France, who regards Germany alone as the chief enemy, and to separate Austria from Germany would be a possibility to which France might be driven by circumstances for the purpose of terminating the war at an early date. It is only your opposition which can save us, as the formula concerning the self-determination of nations cannot be abandoned. If the Austrians were able to say that they are entitled to speak in your name, if you were to make a declaration of loyalty, if you failed to show clearly that you are opposed to Austria, you would deprive us of our last weapon, and justify the Entente in concluding with the dynasty a separate peace, in the framing of which we should not be able to express any opinion. The present situation makes it imperative for us to show whether it is the dynasty and the diplomats, or whether it is the nations themselves who are entitled to negotiate on behalf of the Austrian nation. Unless you make it clear at the present moment that the dynasty and its diplomats are not entitled to do so, we are lost.
