While the American public has been paying considerable attention to the growing controversy between the United States and Germany, it has almost completely ignored the fact that our Republic is in practically the same kind of controversy with Austria-Hungary, our "beloved wider homeland". That, of course, is easy to understand: Ever since the beginning of the war, our public has, rather instinctively, realized that Austria's role in this conflict is a secondary one, even though it was Vienna which started this war. The method of waging the war and the foreign policies of both of these Central Powers would be the same if there were no border between Austria and Germany, so complete is the control Germany has over the affairs of the Dual Monarchy. If, therefore, the United States suddenly finds herself in a sharper controversy with Austria-Hungary than is her controversy with Berlin, it does not mean anything more than a 2new phase of the same old conflict.

The reason for this new phase is to be sought in an Austrian note, the arrival of which attracted, on the whole, very little attention. Unlike Germany, incensed to exasperation by our traffic in armaments but keeping quiet about it in her diplomatic communication, Austria has sent us a note containing a sharp and formal protest against the sale of arms and ammunition by American businessmen to the Allies. Berlin, of course, maintains that it had absolutely nothing to do with the note sent by its ally--more correctly, lackey--nor even any knowledge of the intention of the Austrian government to present such a protest: But those who are familiar with the doings behind the scene dismiss with a skeptical smile such a clumsy denial, whose truthfulness is questioned even in Germany herself. The reason why the protest came from Vienna rather than from Berlin is simply because Vienna is not in such close contact with the supply house of world's armaments, the Krupp works in Essen, as is Berlin.

The Austrian note gives the United States to understand that the traffic in ammunition has reached such enormous proportions that it is acquiring a nonneutral character. Although the exportation of munitions is permitted by international law it is no longer considered friendly. If the United States is desirous of maintaining friendly relations with Austria, the note suggests, it will prohibit the export of armaments, or at least use the threat of prohibiting it in order to force England to discontinue the blockade of German ports. This comprises the whole logic of the Vienna gentlemen, whose note has raised such a storm that it is causing great uneasiness, in spite of all the noisy jubilations over the victories on the Russian front. Germany, which, until the outbreak of the war, had been the chief supplier of armaments for any country in the world which could put up the cash, could not very well issue such a protest without an implied self-accusation of having violated the laws of neutrality for the last hundred years. Therefore, Berlin selected Vienna to pull the chestnuts out of the fire. However, in principle, Austria's record in this respect is no cleaner than that of Germany.

The same thing happened in the time of the Civil War when the Southerners were scouting the whole world for materials necessary for the continuation of the war. Because of protests of American envoys to the several European governments, the Southerners' business agents were refused everywhere, even in Germany; but they succeeded in Austria. One million army rifles of a somewhat obsolete type were sold to these agents over the strong protest of the Vienna envoy of the States fighting for the liberation of the slaves; and the rifles were also delivered. How much did these rifles prolong the duration of the murderous Civil War? The hypocritical government of Vienna should ask and answer this question for itself instead of complaining that the ammunition that is being supplied by the United States is unnecessarily prolonging the European conflict. But Austria's more recent record in this respect is not any better. The Skoda Works, the armament factories in Steyer and elsewhere, were not working for home consumption only. In fact--following Germany's example--they were selling armaments to countries which it was well known would, some day, not so very far in the future, be in a war against Austria. It is known that a trainload of armaments en route to 5Serbia was confiscated two days after Austria had declared war on Serbia. A country which tolerates this kind of business has no right to invoke the spirit of a law whose letter is not being violated in the least.

But even if American sales of munitions were in violation of that law, the United States has not the least interest in helping Austria extricate itself from a distressing situation into which it has put itself by a criminal action. If it were really true that an embargo on ammunition and armaments would bring about an earlier end to the war, the argument could be considered as of some value. But this is not the case. Furthermore, the quantity of war material exported from this country is not so large, and the Allies could, if necessary, either do without it or acquire just as much by putting greater pressure on their sources of supply at home and elsewhere. But since they are stronger in numbers and also financially, and therefore destined to win in this history-making struggle, an embargo on munitions would tend to prolong the war rather then to shorten it. But there is another reason for opposing such an embargo. It would mean a 6change of the laws governing wars between nations during the progress of a war, which would be to the advantage of one of the warring sides.

If the set of established customs called international law should be disregarded, no country could trust another in the future. So, for instance, if the traffic in armaments is considered legal, every country can decide for itself whether it wants to rely on the purchase of armaments in case of war, or build its own factories where all the necessary war materials would be manufactured.

In case of an embargo on armaments, which the gentlemen of Vienna so strongly desire, each country would have to build such arms factories as the Germans have in Essen, and the Austrians have in Pilsen. This holds true at least as long as the capitalistic system remains in the stage of international competition. Of course, it would be quite useless to argue with the ruling Austrian circles about the propriety of traffic in armaments, but this is a good opportunity to point out this new chapter in 7the story of the silly and shameless conduct of international politics of the Dual Monarchy. Most likely, the Austrian note will not be answered at all, much less complied with. But it is of considerable interest as a document showing the helpless rage of a bureaucracy filled with fears concerning its own future.