SIR MAURICE DE BUNSEN was the Ambassador of Great Britain at Vienna during the year preceding the war. In spite of his bitter experiences during that crisis, he evidently has retained throughout the subsequent rupture of friendly relations between his government and Austria, the kindly memories that the genial old Danube metropolis, with the best cooking and the best music on the Continent, was wont to inspire in those who enjoyed its pre-war hospitality. Nor does his recent visit appear to be entirely devoid of regret for the disappearance of these ancient institutions and the dispersion of those courtly circles that have a charm even for ambassadors who may recognize their obsolescence.

Indeed, all Europe will possibly experience a sentimental reaction in favor of many of the things that war and revolution have swept away, as soon as it discovers that those things are irrecoverable. That sentiment will not stop the course of progress, but it may chasten the stern exuberance of victory and hasten the recovery of that spirit of mutual sympathy and understanding which must precede Europe's healing and which inspires the kindly article that we print below.

MARSHAL FOCH reveals the man of sentiment even when he disparages sentiment, and the transparency of the contradiction detracts nothing from a certain charm of personality which appears in the interview we print below. The men least affected by the hysteria of the war - and of victory were those who performed the daily labor of the conflict with minds too preoccupied with their daily tasks to dwell upon the ideal aspects of the catastrophe which enclosed them. History will ponder long before passing final judgment upon the military leaders of the past five years, and success or failure brings into relief very different qualities of character. But impressions gathered from their public utterances during the past few months indicate that between the minds of Foch and of Ludendorff lies that distinction of quality by which we divide genius from talent the intuitional from the methodical and the uninspired intellect. Ludendorff is undoubtedly a man who has been made smaller by defeat. Foch might have survived such an experience with much less loss of prestige and esteem.

EVER since the revolution the call for a scapegoat to carry the world's

war sins into the wilderness has been as insistent in Germany as in the Supreme Council at Paris. Socialists of all schools united in demanding that the secret documents of the belligerent countries be explored and their contents made known to the people. The Bolsheviki, soon after gaining control of the national archives, published a mass of embarrassing information regarding the confidential plans of the Russian Government before the war and its dealings with other countries. Similar revelations were made at Munich and Budapest. Berlin and Vienna followed more deliberately with the Kautsky documents and the recent Austrian Red Books. Men formerly in high positions are publishing memoirs and printing in the newpapers, official correspondence and extracts from hitherto unknown documents.

A late example of these is the Prince Sixtus diary, now appearing in L'Opinion. This records the details of sub rosa peace negotiations between Austria, France, and England during the winter and spring of 1917, which were only partly revealed by the Clemenceau-Czernin controversy. In introducing its account of these negotiations, L'Opinion says: 'Only eight days ago I heard one of our great Paris editors say, with an air of profound weariness: "I tell you, the public is satiated with books about the war. Give them something else." But to-day, upon finishing the arrangement for publication of the unedited documents of this unknown history of this page of the history of the war when it was still at its agonizing crisis-I could not resist saying to myself that our thoughts and interest in that tragedy are as much a part of us as the blood that circulates through our body.'

The propaganda literature of the war period which was the special

A

pleading of governments for their national cause, has been followed by a new propaganda literature which is the special pleading of leaders and parties in defense of their policies and decisions during the conflict. Germany began some months ago a formal parliamentary investigation of the causes and conduct of the war. The Commission has not been presided over by Socialists, though even the radical wing of that party is represented in its membership. The sessions have afforded several dramatic scenes. former Minister of Finance and Ambassador to Russia has been fined three hundred marks for refusing to answer questions addressed to him by a member of the Commission independent Socialist who himself is charged with using Russian money to incite revolution in Berlin. Stormy scenes occurred when Bethmann-Hollweg, the first war chancellor, defended himself against hostile critics. Finally, the appearance of Hindenburg and Ludendorff as witnesses was seized upon as an occasion for a reactionary demonstration in Berlin, which became the absorbing incident of the day, and caused no little disquiet to the government. Their testimony seemed at one time likely to develop into a re-argument of the whole issue between militarism and democracy.

an

This inquiry lacks the features of a state trial because, though the accused are numerous, no prisoner stands before the bar. The authority and functions of the Commission are limited to procuring and publishing information. It has no power to pass sentence or impose penalties. Its proceedings tend to bring into clearer relief the fact that the German public is more interested in knowing why peace was not made in the winter of 1916-1917, when President Wilson offered to

mediate, than in learning why the war originally occurred.

Germans attribute the fact of the war to a wrong system of government and diplomacy rather than to the fault of individuals. But they believe individual political and military leaders were culpable for prolonging the war after a reasonable peace might have been obtained.

FIUME is only one of the possible foci of new disturbances in Europe. But it has been brought into exceptional relief because it is almost the sole instance where the American Government has taken a definite stand with regard to the allotment of disputed territories, and because the dramatic episode staged there by D'Annunzio captured public attention. Italy, or at least the cooler-headed element of the nation, seems to have tired of the latter adventure. Enthusiasm for D'Annunzio is obviously on the wane. People now see the conflict between Italy's national interests and the poet's claims. The latter has lost The latter has lost sympathy very rapidly since refusing to recognize the results of a popular vote or alleged popular vote Fiume, which was overwhelmingly in favor of accepting an Italian proposal to make that town a free city and a free port under conditions that would protect Italy's national interests.

in

We are now told that this popular vote was far from being a true picture of public sentiment. Of thirty-three thousand entitled to cast their ballots, only eleven thousand were permitted to do so. Naturally, it was the Slavs who were excluded from the polls.

Several leading residents of Fiume, of Italian birth or descent, have fled the city and are bitterly attacking D'Annunzio for his alleged lawless rule.

So, there seem to be four parties to

the Fiume dispute-D'Annunzio and his still loyal supporters, who possibly would like to establish there a mediæval condottieri principality; the Italian Government, which wishes to make Fiume technically a free city and a free port, practically controlled by Italians; a local autonomy party, including prominent Italian residents, which desires real independence; and the Jugo-Slavs, who insist that the original decision to allot the city to their country be carried out.

A RECENT Italian description of Spain as poised between a rule of anarchists and of Janizaries, appears to be more accurate than most epigrammatic characterizations. Since the review of conditions in that country, which we publish elsewhere, was written, things have continued to go from bad to worse. The de Toca cabinet has been overthrown, partly as a result of army intrigues, and a Conservative ministry has been formed. Since June, 1917, the Officers' Union has exercised a powerful influence upon political events in Spain. Army politics are reported to have undermined military discipline. A story is current that the fall of the de Toca cabinet was hastened by a scandal resulting from charges for breaches of discipline brought against a majority of the officers of a certain regiment. The offenders are said to have been so numerous and powerful that they were able to defy the decisions of a court-martial organized by the minority group. Almost simultaneously with the recent cabinet overthrow, new general strikes and labor disturbances, accompanied by undisguised anarchist and Bolshevist propaganda, occurred at several places.

ONLY rarely do we encounter such outspoken sentiment in favor of Ger