New York Times Current History: The European War, Vol 2, No. 1, April, 1915 eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 414 pages of information about New York Times Current History.

New York Times Current History: The European War, Vol 2, No. 1, April, 1915 eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 414 pages of information about New York Times Current History.
occupying the territory which they covet.  Both States may therefore be expected to abandon their neutrality and to invade Austria-Hungary without delay as soon as they hear that that country seriously contemplates entering upon peace negotiations; it follows that if Austria-Hungary wishes to withdraw from the stricken field she must open negotiations with the utmost secrecy and conclude them with the utmost speed.  It is clear that if Italy and Rumania should be given the much desired opportunity of joining the Entente powers, the Dual Monarchy would lose not only Polish Galicia and Serbian Bosnia and Herzegovina but Rumanian Transylvania and the Banat, with about 5,000,000 inhabitants, and the largely Italian Trentino, Istria, and Dalmatia, with at least 1,000,000 people, as well.  These vast losses would probably lead to the total dismemberment of the State, for the remaining subject nationalities would also demand their freedom.  Self-preservation is the first law and the first duty of individuals and of States.  It is therefore conceivable, and is indeed only logical, that Austria-Hungary will conclude overnight a separate peace.  If she should take that wise and necessary step, isolated Germany would either have to give up the unequal struggle or fight on single-handed.  In the latter case, her defeat would no doubt be rapid.  It seems, therefore, quite possible that the end of the war may be as sudden as was its beginning.  Hence, the consideration of the Polish question seems not only useful but urgent....

From the very beginning Prussia, Austria, and Russia treated Poland as a corpus vile, and cut it up like a cake, without any regard to the claims, the rights, and the protests of the Poles themselves.  Although history only mentions three partitions, there were in reality seven.  There were those of 1772, 1793, and 1795, already referred to; and these were followed by a redistribution of the Polish territories in 1807, 1809, and 1815.  In none of these were the inhabitants consulted or even considered.  The Congress of Vienna established the independence of Cracow, but Austria-Hungary, asserting that she considered herself “threatened” by the existence of that tiny State, seized it in 1846.

While Prussia, Austria, and Russia, considering that might was right, had divided Poland among themselves, regardless of the passionate protests of the inhabitants, England had remained a spectator, but not a passive one, of the tragedy.  She viewed the action of the allies with strong disapproval, but although she gave frank expression to her sentiments, she did not actively interfere.  After all, no English interests were involved in the partition.  It was not her business to intervene.  Besides, she could not successfully have opposed single-handed the joint action of the three powerful partner States, especially as France, under the weak Louis XV., held aloof.  However, English statesmen refused to consider as valid the five partitions which took place before and during the Napoleonic era.

Copyrights
Project Gutenberg
New York Times Current History: The European War, Vol 2, No. 1, April, 1915 from Project Gutenberg. Public domain.