monarchs at Petersburg, Berlin and Vienna, he saw the strongest support against revolution, and wished thereby to build up a strong barrier against disorganisation.  He saw great danger to the friendly relations between Russia and ourselves in the rivalry between Vienna and Petersburg in the Balkans, and contrary to the reports that have been spread about him, he was rather a partisan than an opposer of Serbia.  He was in favour of the Serbians because he felt assured that the petty agrarian policy of the Magyars was responsible for the constant annoyance of the Serbians.  He favoured meeting Serbia half-way, because he considered that the Serbian question was a source of discord between Vienna and Petersburg.  Another reason was that he was no friend of King Ferdinand of Bulgaria, who constantly pursued an anti-Serbian policy.  I believe that if those who were responsible for the organisation of the assassination of the Archduke had known what little justification there was for supposing him to be the man they thought him, they would have desisted.

Franz Ferdinand had a very pronounced feeling that in spite of all alliances the Monarchy must remain independent.  He was opposed to any closer combine with Germany, not wishing to be bound to Germany more than to Russia, and the plan that was formulated later as “Central Europe” was always far removed from his wishes and endeavours.

His plans for the future were not worked out, not complete, but they were sound.  This, however, is not sufficient to enable one to say that they could have been successfully carried out.  In certain circumstances more harm than good will result from energy devoid of the necessary calm prudence, wisdom and, above all, patience.

CHAPTER III

WILLIAM II

1

The Emperor William has been for so long the centre of historic events, so much has been written about him, that apparently he should be known to all the world; and yet I believe he has often been misrepresented.

It is well known that the scarlet thread running through the whole character of William II. was his firm conviction that he was the “elect of God,” and that the dynasty was inextricably bound to the German people.  Bismarck also believed in the dynastic fidelity of the Germans.  It seems to me that there is just as little dynastic as republican spirit in nations—­just as little in the Germans as in others.  There is merely a feeling of content or discontent which manifests itself either for or against the dynasty and the form of government.  Bismarck himself was a proof of the justice of this argument.  As he himself always maintained, he was thoroughly dynastic—­but only during the lifetime of the Emperor William I. He had no love for William II., who had treated him badly, and made no secret of his feelings.  He hung the picture of the “young man” in the scullery and wrote a book about him which, owing to its contents, could not be published.