74 NEGOTIATORS AND NEGOTIATIONS
right as an ally to help Austria if attacked '.1 The
mutual incompatibility of the two voices of Germany
was pointed out from Rome, where the Marquis di
San Giuliano, the Italian Foreign Minister, attempted
a reconciliation between them, on information received
from Berlin, that 'the difficulty was rather the "conference" than the principle '. 2 But we may ask whether
Herrvon Jagow's reply to Sir Edward Goschen does not
really show that the whole principle of a conference was
objected to, seeing that he said that such a 'conference
was not practicable', and that 'it would be best to await
the outcome of the exchange of views between the
Austrian and Russian Governments '.3 But, if it was
not the principle that was objected to, but only the form,
where are we? We can do nothing else but assume
that the German Government objected to the terms
employed by Sir Edward Grey, and that for the sake of
a mere quibble they wasted time until other events
made the catastrophe inevitable. Impartiality will have
to judge whether such action was deliberate or not;
whether in this case also it is crime or folly which has
to be laid at the door of the German Government.
The proposed conference having been rejected by
Germany, an attempt was then made by several Powers
to invite Austria to suspend military action. Although
Count Mensdorff, the Austrian Ambassador in London,
had made on July 25th a distinction between military
preparations and military operations, and had urged that
his Government had only the former then in view, it was
reported two days later from Rome that there were great
doubts 'whether Germany would be willing to invite
Austria to suspend military action pending the conference'. Even if she had been willing to do so, it
is very doubtful whether, in view of the Austrian declara1 Correspondence, No.46. Sir E. Grey to Sir E. Goschen, July 27.
' Ibid. No. Bo. Sir R. Rodd to Sir E. Grey, July 29.
' Ibid. No. 43·. Sir E. Goschen to Sir E. Grey, July 27.