Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:39:56.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Presidents of the United States in the Eyes of Austro-Hungarian Diplomats: 1901–19131

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2009

Margaret Sterne
Margaret Sterne
Affiliation:
Wayne State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The interpretation of unpublished political documents in the light of known historical events resembles Penelope's efforts to convince her many suitors of the necessity of her avowed goal, namely to fabricate a new garment out of old material. The Austro-Hungarian diplomatic reports from Washington written in the first two decades of the twentieth century will not necessarily provoke a re-evaluation of the events leading to World War I. However, as in Penelope's case, their craftsmanship will arouse interest; they may well serve as a new source of study, and they certainly shed new light on old material.

Type
Articles
Information
Austrian History Yearbook , Volume 2 , January 1966 , pp. 153 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © Center for Austrian Studies, University of Minnesota 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Through the courtesy of Herr Generaldirektor Hofrat Dr. Gebhard Rath, of the Österreichische Staatsarchiv, the author received the special permission of the Austrian Bundeskanzleramt to publish these reports. The secret documents dealing with the attempts of the Hungarian government to stop Pan-Slav action in the United States will soon be published.

3 In May, 1902, President Roosevelt elevated Mr. Robert S. McCormick to the position of ambassador in Vienna without waiting for the Austrian government to raise the rank of its representative in Washington. Secretary of State John Hay told Baron Hengelmüller that they would expect the Austro-Hungarian government to follow suit in June. Baron Hengelmüller referred to this act of the president as an “impulsive decision.” Hengelmüller to the foreign ministry, Washington, D. C., May 31, 1902, Haus-, Hof-, und Staatsarchiv (Vienna) (hereafter cited as “St. A. [Vienna]”), Politischea Archiv, Washington, Berichte, 1902, Fasz. XXXIII, 37Google ScholarPubMed. The rank of ambassador was actually conferred on Baron Hengelmüller in December, 1902. Hengelmüller to Goluchowski, Washington, D. C, December 30,1902, Ibid., No. 33 A.

4 When the Italian Ambassador Baron Mayor des Planches was transferred from Washington to Constantinople, Baron Hengelmüller became his successor as doyen of the diplomatic corps. Hengelmüller to Aehrenthal, Washington, D. C, January 14, 1910, Ibid., 43, No. 1 A.

5 Baron Hengelmüller informed Secretary of State P. C. Knox of his intended resignation before the latter left on a special mission to Japan to represent the United States at the funeral of the Mikado Mutsuhito. Hengelmüller to Berchtold, Bar Harbor, Maine, August 24, 1912, Ibid., Varia 1912, Fasz. XXXIII, No. 45. A very cordial note by Secretary Knox to Baron Hengelmüller is attached to this report. See also Constantin Theodor, Dumba, Memoirs of a Diplomat (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1932)Google Scholar. Mr. Dumba wrote that “Count Berchtold had at last induced my predecessor, Baron Hengelmüller, who had seen 42 years of service, to retire.” Ibid., p. 157.

6 Giskra, to Goluchowski, , Washington, D. C, March 5, 1905, St. A. (Vienna), Politischea Archiv, Washington, Berichte, Fasz. XXXIII, 40, No. 8 C.Google Scholar

7 [Count Adam] Tarnowski to Goluchowski, Washington, D. C, June 1, 1901, Ibid., Fasz. XXXVI, 36, No. 13 B.

8 Tarnowski to Goluchowski, Washington, D. C, May 7, 1901, Ibid., No. 10 A.

9 Callenberg to Goluchowski, Manchester, Mass., September 8, 1901, Ibid., No. 2.

10 Callenberg to Goluchowski, Manchester, Mass., September 15, 1901, Ibid., No. 24.

11 Hengelmüller to Goluchowski, Washington, D. C, December 6, 1901, Ibid., No. 28 A.

12 Hengelmuller to Goluchowski, Washington, D. C, March 7, 1902, Ibid., Fasz. XXXIII, 37, No. 5 A.

13 Hengelmüller to Goluchowski, Washington, D. C, January 17, 1903, Ibid., Fasz. XXXIII, 38, No. 2 B.

14 Hengelmüller to Goluchowski, Washington, D. C, February 16, 1903, Ibid., No. 5 B. This report was designated as “very confidential.”

15 Hengelmüller to Goluchowski, Washington, D. C, June 2, 1902, Ibid., Fasz. XXXIII, 37, No. 16 A.

16 Hengelmüller to Goluchowski, Washington, D. C, November 21, 1904, Ibid., Fasz. XXXIII, 39, No. 21 B.

17 Confidential letter of Hengelmüller to Goluchowski, Manchester, Mass., August 14, 1903, Ibid., Fasz. XXXIH, 38, No. 31 A.

18 See Walter, La Feber, “The Background of Cleveland's Venezuelan Policy: A Reinterpretation,” The American Historical Review, Vol. LXVI (July, 1961), pp. 947–967.Google Scholar

19 Hengelmüller, to Goluchowski, , Lenox, Mass., September 25, 1902, St. A. (Vienna), Politisches Archiv, Washington, Berichte, Fasz. XXXIII, 37, No. 25 A.Google Scholar

20 Hengelmüller to Goluchowski, Washington, D. C, February 16, 1903, Ibid., Fasz. XXXIII, 38, No. 5 C.

21 Hengelmüller to Aehrenthal, Washington, D. C, November 21, 1908, Ibid., Varia 1908, Fasz. XXXIII, 41. Marked “very confidential.”

22 Hengelmüller to Goluchowski, Washington, D. C, November 29, 1903, Ibid., Fasz. XXXIII, 38, No. 50 A.

23 A deputation of Jewish American citizens asked President Roosevelt to send a protest to the Russian government over the massacres of Russian Jews in Kishinev. The Russian government refused to accept this petition. See Giskra to Goluchowski, Manchester, Mass., June 6, 1903, June 18, 1903, June 30, 1903, July 5, 1903, and July 21, 1903, Ibid., Nos. 17 A, 19 A, 22 B, 24 A, and 26 A.

24 Hengelmüller to Goluchowski, Washington, D. C, January 16, 1904, Ibid., Fasz. XXXIII, 39, No. 3 C.

25 Giskra to the ministry of foreign affairs, Washington, D. C, June 10, 1905, Ibid., Fasz. XXXIII, 40, Telegram No. 7927.

26 Giskra to Goluchowski, Washington, D. C, June 4, 1905, Ibid., No. 18.

27 Giskra to Goluchowski, Lenox, Mass., June 22, 1905, Ibid., Varia 1905, Fasz. XXXIII, 40.

28 Giskra to Mércy, Lenox, Mass., July 24, 1905, Ibid.

29 Hengelmüller to Goluchowski, Lenox, Mass., August 19, 1905, Ibid., No. 30 B.

30 Hengelmüller to Goluchowski, Lenox, Mass., September 4, 1905, Ibid., No. 31 A.

31 Hengelmüller to Goluchowski, Lenox, Mass., September 7, 1905, Ibid., No. 32. Marked “confidential.”

32 Hengelmüller to Goluchowski, Washington, D. C, January 14, 1902, Ibid., Fasz. XXXIII, 37, No. 2 B.

33 Du Val, Miles P., Cadiz to Cathay: The Story of the Long Diplomatic Struggle for the Panama Canal (2nd ed., Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1947), p. 165Google Scholar. See also the report of the engineer who was mainly responsible for the final choice of Panama: Philippe, Bunau-Varilla, Panama: the Creation, Destruction and Resurrection (London: Constable and Co., 1913).Google Scholar

34 Hengelmüller, to Aehrenthal, , Washington, D. C, April 23, 1907, St. A. (Vienna), Politisches Archiv, Washington, Berichte, Fasz. XXXIII, 41, No. 10.Google Scholar

35 Hengelmüller to Goluchowski, Bar Harbor, Maine, June 18, 1906, Ibid., No. 11 A.

36 The literature on Austria-Hungary's constitutional problems is growing steadily. Still the best coverage is in May, Arthur J., The Hapsburg Monarchy, 1867–1914 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1951), pp. 333–385Google Scholar. See also Kann, Robert A., The Multinational Empire. Nationalism and National Reform in the Habsburg Monarchy, 1848–1918 (2 vols., New York: Columbia University Press, 1950), Vol. II, pp. 221–227Google Scholar; the Austrian History News Letter, Nos. 1–4 (1960–63), in which the most recent books and articles in the United States and Austria are listed; and Hengelmüller, to Aehrenthal, , Washington, D. C, November 18, 1907, St. A. (Vienna), Politisches Archiv, Washington, Berichte, Varia 1907, Fasz. XXXIII, 41. Marked “strictly confidential.”Google Scholar

37 Hengelmüller to Goluchowski, Bar Harbor, Maine, July 5, 1906, Ibid., No. 12.

38 Hengelmüller to Aehrenthal, Bar Harbor, Maine, June 24, 1908, Ibid., No. 19 A.

39 Ibid.

40 Hengelmüller to Aehrenthal, Lenox, Mass., October 14, 1908, Ibid., No. 25.

41 Hengelmüller to Aehrenthal, Washington, D. C, November 16, 1908, Ibid., No. 27.

42 Hengelmüller to Aehrenthal, Washington, D. C, November 26, 1909, Ibid., Fasz. XXXIII, 42, No. 39 A.

43 Hengelmüller to Aehrenthal, Washington, D. C, February 7, 1910, Ibid., Varia 1910, Fasz. XXXIII, 43.

44 Hengelmüller to Aehrenthal, Washington, D. C, March 11, 1911, Ibid., Fasz. XXXIII, 44, No. 7 A. Marked “confidential.”

45 Hengelmüller to Aehrenthal, Washington, D. C, May 2, 1911, Ibid., No. 11. Marked “very confidential.”

46 Hengelmüller to Berchtold, Bar Harbor, Maine, July 5, 1912, Ibid., Fasz. XXXIII, No. 23 A.

47 Hengelmüller to Berchtold, Bar Harbor, Maine, August 24, 1912, Ibid., Varia 1912, Fasz. XXXIII, 45.

48 Prokesch, to Beust, , Constantinople, December 4, 1868, St. A. (Vienna), Administrative Registratur, F 4, Fasz. LXXXIX.Google Scholar

49 Hengelmüller, Ladislaus Baron, Hungary's Fight for National Existence, or the History of the Great Uprising led by Francis Rakoczi II, 1703–1711 (London: MacMillan and Co., 1913), p. vii.Google Scholar