CITY OF NEW YORK THE DIPLOMACY OF THE WAR OF 1914 CHAPTER I REVIEW OF EUROPEAN HISTORY The European Concert Belgian neutrality The Triple Alliance and The Triple Entente - Crises: Fashoda (1898); Algeciras (1906); the Casablanca affair (1908); Bosnia and Herzegovina (1908); Agadir (1911); the Turco-Italian War (1911-12); the Balkan Wars (1912-13) tion just before the War of 1914. 1. The European Concert The situa It is impossible to understand the causes of the outbreak of the present war without some knowledge of the salient features of history which led to the alignment of the great powers into two camps known as the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente. The questions of the present moment, such as that of the neutrality of Belgium, have their roots deep in the past, and their elucidation must be sought in the history of the relations of the European states. Modern Europe, as we know it to-day, was patched together at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. The principal independent states of Europe, which took part in that settlement, formed the European Concert. They had been drawn together by the common danger of French domination and had succeeded at last in overwhelming Napoleon. During the Congress of Vienna, it looked as if the jealousies over the spoils stripped from France would divide the victors into two camps, and start another war. Russia, wishing to acquire all of Poland, offered to compensate Prussia with territory taken from Saxony. This gave Talleyrand his opportunity, and France, Austria, and England agreed to make common cause, by force of arms if necessary, to prevent this dangerous aggrandizement of Russia and Prussia. But the powers had had enough of war, and so found a way to settle their differences by a ruthless carving-up of territories in disregard of the principle of nationality, and even that of "legitimacy," a term which served the same purpose of a shibboleth that the "observance of treaties" now fulfills. The able diplomacy of Talleyrand took advantage of this disagreement to reëstablish the diplomatic equality of France, and the five powers, England, France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia, — working together as the Concert of Europe, dictated to all the other states and completed the territorial transformations and adjustments which suited their counterbalancing interests and jealousies. Proceeding with stumbling and halting gait, constantly in danger of falling, the European Concert continued to be, up to the outbreak of the War of 1914, Europe's supreme hope and only protection against the occurrence of a general war. Although acting as a sort of shock-absorber to break the force of the territorial transformations found necessary and inevitable in the course of years, the European Concert has neither maintained the status quo nor perfected the balance of power, but by compromising between the two has managed to keep the peace. Throughout this long period, the principal concern of the European Concert has been to watch over Balkan affairs in order to prevent the starting of a conflagration in the Near East. 2. Belgian neutrality The Congress of Vienna, which stripped France of the immense possessions she had acquired since 1792, divided them up so as to meet the desires and secure the agreement of the coalition which had overthrown Napoleon. Prussia, Austria, and Russia received their parts on the Continent, but England did not desire to place hostages there, and made no demands for territory, seeking her compensation elsewhere. It was natural that she should keep the colonial possessions captured from France by her fleets. The others could not refuse her what she already held. She wished also to retain certain of the Dutch possessions, as the Cape Colony, which she had seized when Holland was incorporated into the French Empire; at Vienna it was proposed to give the Belgic provinces to Holland as compensation. Austria gladly exchanged her provinces for territories nearer Vienna.1 But this union of Belgium and Holland under the same king was contrary to the sentiments of the Belgian people, and fifteen years later they revolted. France was very anxious to take them over, and there was some Belgian sentiment favorable to this plan; but this would not have satisfied one of England's fundamental principles of policy, which for centuries had been to keep the Belgic provinces out of the control of France. Through these provinces and Holland flowed some of the principal rivers of Europe. They possessed besides great importance as industrial centers. Their union with any great power would inconvenience England, because of the facility of attack afforded by the proximity of Belgian and Dutch harbors to her shores, and also because her commerce might thus be excluded from these rich territories drained by their rivers. Lord Palmerston, therefore, in 1831, true to England's traditional policy, strove to give to Belgium an independent position. But it was evident that a small, rich country with a magnificent strategic position would be coveted by her powerful neighbors, France and Prussia; in the course of future campaigns conducted across her territory, she might, at the settlement of peace, fall to one or the other. The interest of England seemed best served, therefore, by making her perpetually neutral; 1 At the time, Prussia was even more anxious to have a strong "buffer" or "stopper" state to prevent France from invading her territory, and the general distrust of France made all the powers ready to fall in with the proposal. the other powers had to acquiesce in this project or acknowledge ambitions of aggrandizement, which might lead England to make a coalition against them until she obtained assurances that such designs had been abandoned. Accordingly, it was agreed that Belgium should be perpetually neutral, and the principal powers England, France, Prussia, Austria, and Russia-joined in guaranteeing her independence and perpetual neutrality. It is no secret that France still pursued the main purpose of her diplomacy and military exertions since the time of Richelieu- that is, to annex the neighboring provinces of Belgium and to secure her natural outlet toward the north, thus regaining control of her own fluvial arteries of commerce. Under the great Napoleon she had accomplished the union of Belgium with France and had given the benefits of her reformed judicial system to a country which was already united to her by many ties, such as language and religion. But England came and put asunder these two peoples whom the evolution of history had united. In the course of years, another Napoleon upon the throne of France had hoped again to incorporate Belgium into France, as was done at the epoch of the Revolution, and the French Ambassador, Benedetti, proposed to Bismarck a partition of Belgium, just as Russia had proposed and successfully brought about the partition of Poland in the latter part of the eighteenth century. Bismarck prevailed upon Benedetti to write out this proposal in his own hand, which he took for reference to the King of Prussia, and on the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War exhibited it to the diplomatic corps at Berlin. The inevitable result was still further to prejudice England against the brilliant adventurer upon the throne of France. Negotiations were entered into with each of the belligerents, and a separate treaty signed with each to make common cause against the other in case of a violation of Belgian neutrality. During the Franco-Prussian War, the perpetual neutrality of Bel gium, Luxemburg, and Switzerland, the only perpetually neutralized states of Europe, was faithfully respected by all parties. In the course of generations, Europe has become accustomed to this artificial situation and has taken for granted that it would persist. The general public has not appreciated the difference between ordinary neutrality and perpetual neutrality. In the present war the United States is a neutral in the ordinary sense, but may terminate that condition at any moment by declaring war and becoming a belligerent; or any other power may declare war upon the United States with the same effect. So also in the case of Holland, Germany or England may terminate Dutch neutrality by declaring war against her. Switzerland, Belgium, and Luxemburg, on the contrary, are placed under a special régime based on international agreements signed by the powers interested, according to the terms of which their territories must remain perpetually neutral, and this condition may not be modified to suit the convenience of any belligerent or of the perpetually neutral country itself. Such a condition is often spoken of as neutralization. 3. The Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente The Franco-German War was the most important event of European history until overshadowed by the outbreak of the present war. Prussia emerged from it at the head of a united German nation. There was a serious dislocation of the old political relations which it took several years to adjust. England, for a time at least, needed not to fear the rivalry of France and devoted her attention to checking the ambitions of Russia. Bismarck made the center of his political conception a firm alliance with Austria. When Prussia defeated her in 1866, Bismarck held back the Prussians from making a triumphal entry into Vienna and was most considerate of Austrian susceptibilities. Later, at the Congress of Berlin in 1878, he succeeded in obtaining |