Here follows an account of the further conversation with Jagow according to the version given by Sverbeev in a later report, substantially identical with that telegraphed by him to St. Petersburg on the evening of the 29th:
It was the news of our mobilization against Austria-Hungary with which I had orders to acquaint him. In confirming this news I emphasized—as I had orders to do—that this measure had no point of hostility directed against Germany and I added that the mobilization on the Austrian frontier had all the more foundation as the Hapsburg Monarchy, according to trustworthy information reaching me, was itself making extensive military preparations in Galicia.
Herr von Jagow denied the alleged preparations and declared that since we had mobilized against Austria-Hungary, Germany was likewise obliged to mobilize; there was therefore nothing else left to be done and the diplomatists must now leave the talking to the cannon.
So, the question "Why did America intervene in WWI" has been successfully convertered into a discussion of the events in Europe from July 25th to August 4, 1914, almost without discussing the topic at all.
asI would not let Berlin know, of course, of any understanding had with the Allies, but would rather lead them to think our proposal would be rejected by the Allies.
as though the quote had been given in full, is not acceptable practice here. We also require a citation to go along with the quotation, to allow our readers to verify the quotes within the context of the original passage. That way there's no confusion about what the readers are getting when they come here.I would not let Berlin know, of course, of any understanding had with the Allies.
I will leave to others to judge and evaluate the difference in meaning between the two quotes and what determined Jon to bring it up at all.
In other words: this was Sverbeev's account of Jagow's words. There is no source which directly quotes Jagow as having spoken these words. If this had been clear from the start, there would have been no controversy.
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot]