English Translation

24 speak his words, whether for the Reichstag majority or for the military party and for those who believe in world domination. We have certainly spoken now in too clear disparity to leave any doubt or question open. A clear principle goes through the whole program that I have designed. It is the principle of justice for all peoples and nationalities and speech before the Congress, their right to live under equal conditions in freedom and security, regardless of whether they are strong or weak. If this principle is held on 12 February 1918. Principle is not made the basis, no part of the construction of the "New Free Press" of 13 February 1918 can be made. The people of the United States could not act according to any other principle and is willing to declare life, honor and everything it possesses to the defense of this principle to Reuter: President Wilson gave today the following speech to consecrate. The moral climax of this culminating final assembly: war for human freedom has come. The American On January 8 I had the honour to speak to you about the war goals to people is ready to its cigene force, its own supreme goal and its how it understands our people. The British Prime Minister has to put his own integrity and dedication to the test. January 5 in similar presentations. To these speeches the German Reieh Chancellor on January 24 and Count Gzernin for Austria-Hungary on the same day addressed. It is pleasing to hear that our wish will be realized so soon that every exchange of views on this great subject will be carried out in the ears of the whole world. Count Czernin's answer, the main thing of which is addressed to my address to my speech of 8 January, is in a very friendly tone. It sees in my statement a sufficiently encouraging approach to the views of its own government to justify its belief that they provide a basis for a more in-depth examination of the objectives of the two governments. He is said to have indicated that the views which he expressed had been communicated to me before and that at the time when he expressed them I was subject to them. However, in this he has certainly been misunderstood. Ieh had received no communication of what he intended to say. Of course, there was no reason why he should have contacted me privately. I am quite pleased to belong to his public audience. I must say that Count Hertling's answer is very vague and very confusing. It is full of two-dented seats and it is not clear where it leads. But it is certainly in a very different tone from the tone of Count Czernin's speech and probably with an opposite purpose. Unfortunately, it confirms more the unfortunate impression we have gained from the conferences in Brest-Litovsk than that it removes it. He does not accept the principle of public diplomacy, as he says, but he accepts the principle that public diplomacy should be applied to all matters which must be the content of any final agreement. He is distrustful of international action and of international deliberation.