the contents of the Servian note. They make this statement without qualification. We learn from the statement of Sir Maurice de Bunsen, British Ambassador at Vienna, that the contents of the note were communicated to him at about the time of its presentation at Belgrade. (Cf. B. W. P., Miscellaneous, no. 10, p. 1.) It seems likely, however, that the note was shown to Von Tchirsky, German Ambassador at Vienna, in his private if not in his official capacity. It will doubtless be a matter of particular interest to ascertain what is the ground for the statement of Sir Maurice de Bunsen that Von Tchirsky, disregarding the procedure of responsible Governments, telegraphed the contents of the note directly to the Kaiser. If there should prove to be any truth in this allegation, it would have an important bearing upon the responsibility of the Kaiser, and show that Germany was afflicted with a secret or irresponsible diplomacy similar to that which was the curse of the old régime in France.

In any event, accepting the statements of the German officials at their full face value, and having due regard for the care which they took to emphasize their ignorance, we are led to the conclusion that the German Government took particular pains to be in a position where it could proclaim its innocence of the terms of the Austrian note. One explanation would be that the German Government considered that it would then be in a better position to say to the other powers, "We have kept out of this affair because it is a matter between Austria and Servia, and we expect the other powers to assume the same attitude." This stand on the part of Germany would be less dictatorial than if she had had a previous acquaintance with the note, and had then insisted upon holding off the powers from any intervention. In such a case she would seem to be a party with Austria in the chastisement of Servia. Such an attitude would have aroused still more the resentment of Russia, and precipitated a conflict. Yet this very precipitancy

was the thing above all others which Germany needed if she were really planning a war. True, it may be said that the German Government had to take care not to proceed in such a way as to lose the confidence of the German people, in seeming to force a war by its aggressive action. It does not seem likely, however if those who actually controlled the destinies of Germany were determined to have a war at that particular moment that they would have been at such pains to avoid the appearance of an action which would have helped to force the issue and bring on the conflict.

Germany's solicitude to avoid too great an appearance of aggression may have been with an eye to securing British neutrality. It seems most probable that Germany did not really wish to force a war, and that her real purpose was to secure a diplomatic triumph and force the Entente Powers to recognize the paramount influence of Austria in Servia. If Germany had been successful in carrying through this programme, German prestige would have been greatly enhanced in the Balkans, at the expense of Russia. By accepting her dictation in this matter, the Entente Powers would have practically opened the way for Austria to expand her influence toward the Ægean, and have permitted the German Empire to develop its great project of expansion in Asia Minor along the line of the Bagdad Railway.

3. Germany pledged to support Austria

The German Memorandum, setting forth the circumstances under which Germany promised Austria her support, goes on to relate how "Russian policy soon after the events following the Turkish revolution of 1908 was directed towards bringing about, under her patronage, a coalition of the Balkan States armed against the integrity of Turkey. This coalition, which succeeded in 1911 in driving Turkey from the greater part of her European

possessions, came to grief over the question of distributing the spoils. Russia was not discouraged by this failure of her plans. According to the idea of the Russian statesmen, a new Balkan league under Russian patronage should be brought about, directed no longer against Turkey, now dislodged from the Balkans, but against the integrity of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. It was proposed that Servia should cede to Bulgaria those parts of Macedonia which she had received during the last Balkan War, in exchange for Bosnia and Herzegovina, which were to be taken from Austria. To oblige Bulgaria to fall in with this plan, she was to be isolated; Rumania was to be attached to Russia through the aid of a French propaganda, and Servia was promised Bosnia and Herzegovina.

"Under these circumstances it was clear that Austria had to recognize that she could, with due regard for the dignity and preservation of the Monarchy, no longer view with unconcern this agitation across the border. The Austro-Hungarian Government imparted their views to the German Government, and asked for our opinion. We were able to agree most heartily with our ally's estimate of the situation, and assure her that any action she considered necessary to put an end to the movement in Servia directed against the integrity of the Monarchy would meet with our approval.

"We were perfectly aware that the event of any warlike preparations by Austria-Hungary against Servia might bring Russia into the field, and that it might therefore involve us in a war, in accordance with our duty as allies. Recognizing, however, that Austria's vital interests were at stake, we could not advise our ally to yield in a manner incompatible with her dignity, or deny her our assistance at this trying time. We were still less able to do so since our own interests were most seriously threatened by the continuation of the Serb agitation. We therefore left Austria an absolutely free hand in dealing with Servia,

and we took no part in her preparations." (G. W. B., Memorandum, pp. 4-6.)

On July 24, M. Jules Cambon, French Ambassador at Berlin, in a dispatch to his Government said:

"Herr von Jagow asked me if I really considered the situation serious. 'Assuredly,' I replied, 'for, if what is going on has been pondered over, I do not understand why people have cut their bridges behind them.'

"Everything shows that Germany is prepared to support in a thoroughly energetic manner the attitude of Austria. The weakness displayed for some years past by the Austro-Hungarian ally has undermined the confidence placed in her here. She was found heavy to move. The foolish trials, such as the Agram and Friedjung affairs, made her police odious by covering it with ridicule. All that was asked of her was that she should be strong, but it is now thought sufficient that she should be brutal.

"An article which appeared in the Lokal Anzeiger reveals a state of mind in the German Chancellery, to which we in Paris are naturally not inclined to pay enough attention. I refer to the feeling of monarchical solidarity. I am convinced that this point of view must be largely taken into account, in appreciating the attitude of the Emperor William, whose impressionable nature must have felt the murder of a Prince who had received him a few days earlier." (Extract, July 24, F. Y. B. no. 30. Cf. G. W. B. Exhibit 20; A. R. B. nos. 13, 18.)

The German Ambassador at Paris declared at the French Foreign Office that 'Austria had presented her note without any previous understanding with Berlin, but nevertheless Germany approved of Austria's views and that certainly "the arrow once flown," to use the Ambassador's own words, Germany would have to be guided in her action by the consideration only of her duties as an ally.' (Modified quotation, July 24, R. O. P. no.19; cf. B. W. P. no. 25.)

Von Tchirsky, German Ambassador at Vienna, declared to his British colleague that 'Germany knew very well what she was about in backing up Austria-Hungary in the matter.' (Modified quotation, July 26, B. W. P. no. 32.) 4. Germany insists upon the "localization" of the Austro-Servian conflict

The German Government did not limit its support of Austria to a declaration in general terms, but even before the presentation of the Austrian ultimatum the views of the Government were understood by the diplomats and could be discerned through semi-official or inspired articles in the press.1 (Cf. July 4, F. Y. B. no. 9; July 21, F. Y. B. no. 16.)

This attitude that Austria was entitled to take measures to protect herself found a sympathetic echo in England, where the London Times, in its editorial columns, argued that the Austro-Servian dispute was no concern of England's and should be left to the parties immediately concerned; the article did conclude, however, with a warning to Austria against any attempt to use force.2

1 The London Times of July 20 published a dispatch of July 19 from their Berlin correspondent under the heading "PEACE OF EUROPE PARAMOUNT":

The North-German Gazette observes that the European Press is recognizing more and more that Austria-Hungary's demand for a 'clarification' of her relations with Servia is warranted, and proceeds: 'We associate ourselves with the hope expressed in more than one quarter that a serious crisis will be averted by the Servian Government's giving way in good time. In any case, the interests of Europe as a whole, which have asserted themselves hitherto throughout the long Balkan crisis in the maintenance of peace among the great powers, make it appear desirable and necessary that any discussion which may ensue between Austria-Hungary and Servia should remain localized.' On the Bourse, the impression seems to be gaining ground that the Austrian démarche at Belgrade will be such as to cause, at the least, severe tension, and nervousness is aggravated by uncertainty as to Russia's attitude."

These remarks are significant, since the North-German Gazette is generally recognized as a semi-official organ of the Government.

2 London Times, July 16, 1914.

A pamphlet issued by the Austro-Hungarian Consulate-General, New