1914: decisions for war
The series of decisions leading to the outbreak of war in the summer of 1914 was triggered by the murders of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia, on 28 June 1914.
To understand why, we must describe how another Balkan crisis became connected with the general crisis in the states system. Although the terrorists who carried out the murder had been aided by Serbian intelligence without the sanction of the Serbian prime minister, Belgrade's lack of direct responsibility counted for little in Vienna, for the assassinations provided the opportunity for the violent solution to the South Slav problem that Austro-Hungarian officials now craved. On 23 July Vienna issued an ultimatum. Serbia accepted all but one of the ultimatum's demands, but this did not make any difference to Austrian thinking. ‘The Monarch must take an energetic decision to show its power of survival', the Hungarian premier remarked, ‘and to put an end to intolerable conditions in the south-east.' Austria declared war on 28 July. The decision was a reckless leap into the dark since no one in Vienna could have overlooked that war with Serbia was war with Russia. The decision originated from desperation in the face of irreversible decline, but, in retrospect, there is every reason to conclude that Vienna would not have been so reckless had Berlin not issued the so-called ‘blank cheque' in support of Austria's Balkan war.The ‘blank cheque' was issued by Bethmann Hollweg on 6 July. Many of the long-term causes of war set out above converge here. The European alliance system had solidified into two blocs. German efforts to break up the Entente had only resulted in further isolation. Austria-Hungary, Germany's principal ally, might abandon it or, worse, crumble without German backing. The Franco-Russian armaments programmes, combined with Russia's willingness to flex its muscles, meant that the Central Powers would come under the shadow of Entente power.
It was against this background that in Berlin military and civilian opinion agreed on the ‘blank cheque'. A limited war in the Balkans would crush Serbia, humiliate Russia and perhaps even break up the Entente, which was a gross misjudgement of the Russian commitment to Belgrade. The next step was an easy one. If a European war came as the result of a local one, so went the reasoning in Berlin, then this would be the time to fight. The barriers to running such a calculated risk had long since been worn away. At the prompting of Wilhelm II, Bethmann Hollweg made at the end of July a half-hearted attempt to restrain Austria. By this stage, Russia's military preparations had reached alarming proportions. Intelligence also reported French and Belgian war preparations. Time was running out for a successful execution of the Schlieffen Plan. Berlin issued warnings to St Petersburg and Paris and then ultimatums on 31 July, neither of which was accepted. The German war plan continued to move ahead.The Austro-Serbian war confronted Nicholas II and his advisers with a stark choice on 24 July. As the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Sazonov, put it, if Russia did nothing except protest, then its influence in the Balkans would ‘collapse utterly'. The alternative was to act. The lessons of 1908—09 and 1912—13 made pressure to do so immense. Diplomatic avenues would be explored, but mobilization preparations were planned for 26 July. Over the next four days, as the crisis escalated, decisions were taken to order first partial and then full mobilization. Russian mobilization cut across Berlin's calculation that the Austro-Serbian war could be localized and so triggered activation of the Schlieffen Plan. The warning from Berlin on 29 July had little impact in St Petersburg, where war was now thought to be unavoidable. Once again confidence in the French alliance and Russia's strength combined to propel Russia's leaders forward. By coincidence, the French president, Raymond Poincare, and Rene Viviani, the prime minister, were on a return voyage by sea from a state visit to St Petersburg early in the crisis and, consequently, out of contact with Paris.
Regardless, the French ambassador, Maurice Paleologue, spoke unequivocally: ‘France would not only give Russia strong diplomatic support,' he told Sazonov, ‘but would, if necessary, fulfil all the obligations imposed on her by the alliance.' Perhaps if France had advised restraint, Russia might not have acted alone. Yet such a course would have destroyed the cornerstone of French security — the Franco-Russian alliance.Once the German plan went into operation on 1 August, war between four of the Great Powers was certain, and two now had to choose. Italy, financially weak, vulnerable to blockade and fearful of domination by a victorious German-Austro- Hungarian bloc, opted for neutrality first and then joined with the Entente Powers in 1915. Britain was less committed by treaty than Italy. Certainly Britain was a signatory to the 1839 Treaty of London that guaranteed Belgium's independence — not to mention the ententes of 1904 and 1907. However, the ententes and the staff talks with the French did not add up to military alliances. The British cabinet had decided that any decision to help Belgium had to be ‘rather one of policy than legal obligation'. The Germans were optimistic and on 29 July Bethmann Hollweg offered the British a promise not to annex Belgian territory in exchange for neutrality. As late as 1 August the British had no plans to land an army in France; rather, the latest storm over Irish Home Rule preoccupied London.
German optimism proved to be wishful thinking. On 2 August, the cabinet resolved to defend the French coast and fleet and to protect Belgium against a ‘substantial' violation of its neutrality. The German invasion of Belgium followed and Britain declared war on 4 August. Unquestionably the invasion tipped the scales in the cabinet. Safeguarding Belgium and Holland from the control of a hostile power had been a strategic interest for centuries. Equally important was the legacy of the Anglo-German naval antagonism. The German violation persuaded liberals who saw upholding the rights of small nations and the rule of law against aggressors as a moral duty. Germany was believed to be set on conquest of Napoleonic proportions. Britain's own safety would be jeopardized if Germany won. Yet containing Germany was not Britain's only strategic concern in 1914. What if Britain opted for neutrality and the Franco-Russian alliance won? The ententes had been intended to secure the British Empire from these two once hostile Powers, both well positioned to menace it. If they won, Russia and France would be dominant in Europe and in no way friendly to Britain, which had left them to face the Central Powers alone.