passions and hatred and yet continues on its sublime course. Its true and fundamental rules can no more be disregarded without punishment than can the laws of hygiene. If I am wrong in my criticism of Germany's action, on the ground that she has violated international law, time will disclose the truth and indicate the right path to follow.

CHAPTER X

ITALY DECLARES SHE WILL REMAIN NEUTRAL

Italy desirous for peace San Giuliano's helpful suggestions - Italian cooperation with England - Italy declares that she will remain neutral.

1. Italy desirous for peace

THE position of Italy is one of the most interesting features of the present war. By its very nature, the Triple Alliance contained within itself the seeds of its own dissolution. For the first interest of Italy, since she obtained her national unity, has been to acquire the neighboring Italian-speaking provinces of Trieste and the Trentino, which she would lay claim to on the basis of the principle of nationality. This aspiration of Italy for what is called "Italia Irredenta"- that is to say, the remnant of Italy unredeemed from Austrian sway-has been a constant source of irritation between the two countries, and it has required all the efforts of Germany to keep the peace. As Count Nigra said to Von Bülow, "Austria and Italy can only be either allies or enemies." 1

The first serious blow to the Triple Alliance was struck when Italy threw her influence against her ally at the Algeciras Conference. A still ruder shock was the Austrian annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The consolidation of Austrian strength in those provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina was most irritating to Italy; but she prepared a subtle diplomatic coup, and shortly after, in 1911, launched a war against Turkey, a state which had come to be considered as a component part of the Triple Alliance group. It would have taken the diplomacy of a Bismarck to have extricated Germany from this precarious and involved situation; for any interference on the part of Austria or Ger1 Von Bülow, Imperial Germany. New York, 1914, p. 69.

many would have thrown Italy into the arms of England and France and made of her an integral part of the Triple Entente. So Germany had to stand by and see her Ottoman protégé stripped of her possessions, and her weakness shown up to the world. Perhaps a later and careful study of the diplomacy of this epoch will show that Germany made a great mistake in not insisting upon arresting this conflict; but had she been successful, she would probably have had to prepare in quick succession for an attack from France and Russia, assisted by Italy smarting under her check. So Germany considered that she must stand by, and tolerate Italy's undermining of the Triple Alliance by the dismembering of Turkey.

Still another cause of discord, and consequent weakening of the Triple Alliance, resulted from the settlement of the Balkan conflict. Austria and Italy had checked Servia's aspiration for control of Albania and had set up an independent state under international supervision, which meant that Austria and Italy would commence a diplomatic duel to secure control. This ground of difference with Austria, added to the ever-present popular aspirations toward "Italia Irredenta," increased the difficulty of maintaining the peace of the Adriatic. Even had the War of 1914 not broken out, a conflict between Austria and Italy seemed imminent, or at most a question of a few years perhaps months. Such was the situation at the outbreak of the war.1

In the light of conditions we have just outlined, Italy might well consider that the success of the Triple Alliance would mean dictation by Germany and Austria, an increase of Austrian and German power in the Balkans, and consequently Austrian control of Albania and the length

1 The recent disclosures of ex-Premier Giolitti have shown how Italy blocked Austria's plans for a war against Servia in August, 1913, just after Servia had been so successful in foiling Austrian plans and had emerged from the Treaty of Bukharest with her territory almost doubled. (See post, p. 471.)

ening and strengthening of Austria's grip on the Adriatic coast line opposite Italy. From this point of view, Italy's immediate interest would point to her making common cause with the Triple Entente; and she had another reason perhaps of more immediate compelling force, in that her extensive coast line offered an easy target to the fleets of France in control of the Mediterranean. Now that Italy had acquired Tripoli, she had given a hostage to the powers in control of the Mediterranean. Italy understands that it is a first consideration of self-preservation for her never to be engaged in conflict with a power in control of the Mediterranean.

Italy's position was further complicated by her inclusion in the Triple Alliance, according to the terms of which Italy is in certain circumstances obligated to come to the assistance of her two allies. It has been much argued whether the present conflict constitutes a casus fœderis under the terms of the alliance. To discuss this intelligently, we should have to know what obligations Italy had undertaken toward Germany and Austria.1 We only know that Italy has considered that Austria and Germany were the aggressors and that she was not obligated to come to their assistance. This is the gist of the whole question, and has been much obscured by the efforts of all parties to avoid any aggressive action, for the very high purpose of influencing Italy's action and at the same time bidding for the support of international opinion.

The fact remains, after all is said and done, that it is very difficult to determine with any degree of accuracy which party is the aggressor in any conflict. If Russia, for example, should mobilize, out of a clear sky, along the German frontier, Germany would certainly have to declare war and put herself technically in the position of the

1 The terms of the Triple Alliance have not been published, but Bismarck published in 1888 the terms of the Dual Alliance between Germany and Austria, which is supposed to be the basis of the triplice formed by including

aggressor, but the causal act and incipient aggression would have been entirely Russian. A political, defensive alliance, if it has any real vigor, has always of necessity a tendency to become something more than insurance against attack, and as each member in turn gains from the diplomatic support of its co-allies, the alliance comes in time to be looked upon as forming a new, ill-defined political group. The impartial critic could not deny that, even in the absence of aggression, there would be a certain political obligation upon Italy to support her allies. On the other hand, the actual situation of a country, and the diplomatic premonitions which have been given of the action it intends to adhere to, must always be considered when discussing any question as to the good faith of a nation. The good faith of the Italian Government in observing her treaties has always with reason stood very high. In our own history we had a similar crisis, when we refused to live up to the terms of our alliance with France and join the French Revolutionists against England.

1

Looked at superficially, Italy, it might be thought, would make common cause with her allies in the event of war. But if Italy supported Germany and Austria, the results of a war, whether victory or defeat, might be disastrous to her. In case of victory, Austria would become dangerously powerful, and the control of the Balkans and possibly of the mouth of the Adriatic-would tighten her grasp on the Italian portions of her empire. If defeated, Italy would be bereft of Tripoli. On the other hand, Italy's political conscience would not allow her to turn against her allies; and even if she did so she might suffer terribly from the invasion of her northern provinces. Italy, therefore, had more than general objections to the rupture of peace. The Marquis di San Giuliano made every effort to preserve peace, and we need only read the telegrams

1 The Giolitti disclosures reported in the press indicate that Italy did not leave Austria in doubt as to her intentions. See post, p. 471.