spring of 1915 caused anxiety in Western Allied circles as well as in Russia; and it was noticeable that, under the influence of the military reverses of Serbia and Montenegro, “Great Croatian” tendencies presently grew stronger among the Croats and Slovenes, in whose eyes the ultimate fate of Serbia seemed uncertain. Even Serbia was obliged to contemplate a future less brilliant than she had dreamed of. I have no wish to dwell upon this point, for I was often caught between two or more fires. Nevertheless I worked steadily in the Yugoslav interest; and when I met Dr. Trumbitch in Paris in December 1918 we found ourselves in excellent agreement. It is true that, at a Conference held in Geneva at the beginning of November, Pashitch had agreed with Dr. Trumbitch, Dr. Koroshetz and the representatives of the various parties upon racial and territorial unity and also upon the recognition of the Southern Slav National Council which had been constituted at Zagreb on October 6 as a representative Government for the Southern Slavs of Austria-Hungary. They had agreed further that a unitary Government for Serbia and the Southern Slavs should be elected alongside of the individual Serbian and Southern Slav Governments. Consequently, I looked upon the anti-Serbian proclamation in favour of a Southern Slav Republic, which the Southern Slavs in America had issued at Washington on November 1, as having been disposed of by the Geneva Agreement. (The proclamation had been the work of Dr. Hinkovitch who, together with a large number of the American Southern Slavs, had abandoned the Southern Slav Committee.) But undoubtedly the Geneva agreement accentuated dualist tendencies among the Southern Slavs, despite its non-ratification by the King and Government of Serbia.
If I refer thus to the history of the Southern Slav movement it is, I must repeat, solely in order to deal with those aspects of it which affected us and to insist that complaints against us were and are unjustified. There was no dispute between us as to principles. The Southern Slavs, not we, decided upon their programme, though I always advised them to formulate it more concretely. I was often in disagreement with them about tactics, as, for instance, about Supilo’s action in regard to Russia. Neither did I approve of the Southern Slav Committee’s protest in “The Times” against Lloyd George’s war aims speech of January 5, 1918, in which he demanded only autonomy, not independence, for the oppressed Austro-Hungarian peoples, nor of the impossible plan which the Committee originally cherished for a convention of all Southern
