losses has broken the enemy’s spirit. Even the Germans of Austria begin to murmur, but then the system has the advantage of keeping Slav soldiers always under guard.
For military works in the rear of the Italian front the army authorities employ not only the Russians, but also women, and there is consequently much disorder and immorality. The gangs have up to 500 women each.
No one in Austria expects any longer to win the war by defeating the enemy. Every hope is based on the feebleness of Russia and on the detachment of Italy and France. Should those predictions turn out to be false, Austria will confess that it has been defeated.
Premier Seidler on the Declaration on Jan. 6, 1918.
From the proceedings in the Austrian Parliament, Jan. 22, as reported in the Prague daily “Národní Listy” of Jan. 23, 1918.
Premier Dr. Von Seidler, answering the interpellation of German deputies with regard to the declaration adopted January 6 in Prague by the convention of all Czech deputies, as well as in reply to the Czech interpellation about the confiscation of the declaration (Cries from the Czech benches: Read the declaration; contrary cries from the left: Shut up) says that he considers it absolutely necessary to state clearly and plainly, how the government looks upon the declaration. (Deputy Soukup: What is the text of the declaration? Why do you confiscate it? Contrary cries from the left: You will hear why. Cries from the Czechs, noise. Deputy Iro: Do not confiscate the answer.) Speaker rings and calls to order.
The premier: “I am sure that I am not guilty of racial partiality(!). I have declared that I honor every political conviction. But the condition must be that the adversary must have a regard for what must be most sacred to us all, the wellfare of our common fatherland, our principal consideration. (Deputy Kalina: That is what the Czech deputies did! Loud denials and laugh from left.) The declaration of May 30 did indeed step outside the bounds of the actual constitutional facts and called for most severe censure for this special reason that it attacked the sovereign rights of the Holy Hungarian Crown. But it still contemplated a community of interest with the dynasty and the whole empire, it aimed at something within this state, although a much looser state, and as far as its foreign aspects and tendencies were concerned, it could still be harmonized with the dynastic and patriotic bases of Austria. I need not emphasize that I do not approve of the ideas contained in it, but still I could, in spite of our fundamental difference and the necessity of emphasizing it, consider feasible the co-operation within the sphere of practical political problems between the government and the parties upholding the constitution on the one hand and the adherents of that declaration on the other.
But the Prague declaration has a different character. It originated of course from the same national tendencies as the declaration of May 30; but it would be vain to look in it for even the most distant echo of a connection with the dynasty and the empire. The political sentiment which it manifests seems to have been controlled by suggestions from that world of ideas which we combat so successfully in our struggle for existence. The declaration takes to a certain extent an international standpoint and follows its own particularistic aims between Austria and her enemies, ready to accept, at least during peace negotiations, international support to gain the recognition of foreign powers for its sovereignty which it treats as an actual fact. Our enemies can find in it encouragement to maintain principles aimed at the integrity of our state. (Loud approval. Deputy Dr. Soukup: Why don’t you make order in Austria?) It tends to interfere with the success of our negotiations for peace now going on. It combats peace, (Deputy Soukup: That is a lie. The speaker calls Dr. Soukup to order) if peace does not bring with it the principle of the self-determination of nations, artificially twisted for the
