I could not, therefore, conceal from him that his point of view was a serious obstacle to peace; that it was also in direct opposition to the Reichstag view, and I failed to understand it.
I then spoke of the necessity of coming to an understanding as to the minimum of the war aims in which an important part is played by the question whether and how we can achieve a voluntary and peaceable annexation of Poland and Roumania by the Central Powers.
I finally again pointed out that I interpreted the views of the German Reichstag as demanding a peace without annexation or indemnity, and that it would be out of the question for the German Government to ignore the unanimous decision of the Reichstag.

It was not a question of whether we _wished_ to go on fighting, but whether we _could_, and it was my duty to impress upon him in time that we were bound to end the war.
Dr.Michaelis was more given to Pan-Germanism than his predecessor.
It was astonishing to what degree the Pan-Germans misunderstood the situation.

They disliked me so intensely that they avoided me, and I had very few dealings with them.

They were not to be converted.

I remember one instance, when a representative of that Party called on me in Vienna to explain to me the conditions under which his group was prepared to conclude peace: the annexation of Belgium, of a part of east France (Longwy and Briey), of Courland and Lithuania, the cession of the English Fleet to Germany, and I forget how many milliards in war indemnity, etc.