[From the Budapest Correspondent of The London Morning Post.]
To the Revue de Hongrie, the only French paper in Budapest, Count
Andrassy contributes an article for July entitled "Les garanties d'une
paix durable," and discusses the peace terms the Central Empires are
to put forward in the event of final victory. He objects to the idea
of annexation or anything more than "boundary corrections," and says:
Our war is a defensive war, which will achieve its aim when
our enemies have been expelled from our territory and their
ring has been broken. This aim could be best served by
making peace with one or other of our enemies and winning
him over to our cause. This would be of immense advantage to
the future of civilization and ensure us against the horrors
of a prolonged war. A separate peace would be the best
chance for certain Powers to change their international
policy. To my mind the issues of this war will greatly
change the attitude of some hostile States toward us, and
will bring about more intimate relations between them and
ourselves, besides widening the foundations of the alliance
between Hungary and her allies. And this is to be the rock
upon which the European balance of power is to rest in the
future. Our war is not a war of conquest, and the boundary
changes of which some people speak are not the _sine qua
non_ of a good peace. Therefore I do not even wish to speak
about certain territorial alterations, which, nevertheless,
might be necessary.
Regarding the question of England and nationality, Count Andrassy
says:
Victory no doubt affords us the right to demand the
alteration of the map of Europe, yet, this not being our aim
and not to our interest, we can be satisfied with certain
compensations, as no doubt our enemies would not spare us if
they were victorious. Lloyd George said that the States are
to be shaped in the future according to nationalities, which
means that the Monarchy is to be disrupted. An English
scholar not long ago expressed the same view, and, in fact,
in England this idea is being impressed upon the people.
This policy is sounded in a country which dominates so many
millions of alien nationalities. If England speaks in this
way, though she is not in direct conflict with us, what can
we expect from Russia or Italy? Everyone knows that Russia
wants Galicia, the Bukovina, Maramaros; Serbia wants Bosnia,
Herzegovina, Croatia, Slavonia, and the Banat; Italy they
won to their side by promising her our territory;
Transylvania is promised to the one who cares to take it;
henceforth, if we wish to defend it, we shall have to
prepare for a new attack from another quarter. Yet nothing
would be more alien to our thoughts than that if victorious
we should annex foreign territory, for we would have
seriously to consider if such conquest would be to our
advantage or not. The same policy ought to be applied in
Germany. Though her enemies would not spare her either, she
must be cautious not to go too far in her appetites, and
should seek for monetary compensations. Most of all she has
to be careful not to claim territory, which would mean
everlasting unrest and a new irredentism. It would be a bad
policy even to touch the Balkans, for such interference
would sooner or later bring Russia back to the Balkans, and
the peoples there, menaced in their independence by us,
would turn to Russia. We would thus place nations used to
independence under alien rule, and such an act would neither
be a wise nor a paying policy.
As regards Italy, Count Andrassy has also a solution which is quite
generous. He says:
We would not do well if we were influenced by just revenge
and turned our eyes on Italian territory. To force territory
from a country whose people are so patriotic would be a
source of weakness on our part. In the worst case, only
boundary corrections can be thought of, and no conquest.
Italy must recompense us by money and not territory, for not
the Italian people, but its Government, committed a breach
of faith against us.