July Crisis Crisis
Introduction:
It is July 23rd, 1914, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire has just issued an ultimatum to the Kingdom of Serbia. It makes tall demands on the nation, some widely regarded as violating Serbia’s Sovereignty. This is in response to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Gavrilo Princip, a Serb. Europe stands in a dangerous, plastic situation, where history may be bent in seemingly any direction. The powers pledge their support for their allies, and war seems likely. How has it come to this, and where will it go from here? This study guide will hope to elucidate the former, but it is up to all of you to determine the later. Struggling with how to order the many relevant events before the July Crisis, I have opted for a Rashomon approach, presenting each country’s history from their perspective in turn. It is best for you to read the whole guide, but it is most important to read the section corresponding to your country, and the last sections about the crisis and war in general.
Serbia
Serbia previously existed as a kingdom in the middle ages, but was conquered by the Ottomans in several phases ending in 1459. However, Serbs remained a distinct people, with their own culture, language, and religion. As the French revolution birthed something resembling nationalism as a political force, the Serbs began increasingly to desire their own independent state. This culminated in a number of uprisings and rebellions, which gained an increasing level of autonomy and independence as the principality of Serbia under the rule of the house of Obrenović. This would ultimately culminate in 1878, when a series of rebellions in the Balkans would result in the Russo-Turkish war, which resulted in Russian and Greek expansion at Ottoman expense, and, notably, in the full independence of Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Montenegro. Four years later, Serbia would promote itself from principality to kingdom, creating the Kingdom of Serbia which is the state which still exists in 1914.
Serbia has for this entire period had a strong alliance with Russia. They had shared slavic and orthodox christian heritage, a common enemy in the Ottomans, and Russia had supported Serbia in their wars on independence. This alliance was popular in both Russian and Serbian Society, but at least initially Serbia also tried to maintain friendly relations with neighboring Austria. However, this was unpopular in some segments of Serbian society. Serbia was still a small state, and there was a substantial population outside of Serbia which many within Serbia regarded as part of the Serbian (or at least some broader Pan-slavic) nation. This included Ottoman territories, but also some in Austria Hungary, notably Bosnia (which is only de jure part of Austria-Hungary later, but de facto theirs the whole time) Among these people, there was ambition for Serbia to do to Slavs in the Balkans what Piedmont had done for Italy, and Prussia had done for Germany, and create a unified state for them. This goal had failed during a war with Bulgaria in 1885, but many still held on to this hope. Such voices had particular influence in the Military, and in 1903, disaffected elements in the military launched the May coup, killing the reigning king and queen and installing Peter I of the Karađorđević dynasty on the throne. This Shocked government throughout Europe, and Serbia only lost its pariah status after making a big show of prosecuting the officers who had launched the coup.
The new government would be more hostile to Austria and highly friendly with Russia. In 1906, a trade dispute known as the pig war (so-called because pork was one of the main trade goods in dispute) would erupt. Through this conflict, Serbia would turn to Russia’s ally France, and be generally regarded as having got the better of the conflict. Seeking to expand their territory with more people regarded as rightfully part of the Serb nation, Serbia teamed up with Greece, Bulgaria, and Montenegro to form the Balkan league, and waged the First Balkan war. This war was highly successful, and Serbia more than doubled their territory, primarily into what is today Kosovo and North Macedonia. However, Austria-Hungary also forced them, through an ultimatum, to give up the territory they would have gained on the Adriatic, forming the nation of Albania. This had the effect of making Austria-Hungary think ultimatums against Serbia were a great idea. A second Balkan war, waged by Bulgaria against their former Balkan League allies in an attempt to get a better cut of the conquered area, ended in Failure for Bulgaria.
In July 1914, the Serbian government does not want war. Belgrade is right across the border from Austria-Hungary, and Austria-Hungary has a much more powerful military. It depends on its allies, France and especially Russia, for support. However, it also regards its sovereignty as very important, and is, in the long term, interested in securing the Slavic areas of Austria-Hungary. Some in Serbia regard this stance as unsatisfactory. Some of these people have formed organizations aiming to achieve this goal more, shall we say, directly. Most prominent is Unification or Death, better known as the Black Hand, a Serbian Nationalist terrorist organization which seeks to expand Serbian territory through assassination and violence. Some suspect links between the Black Hand and high ranking members of the Serbian government, but nothing has been proven.
Austria-Hungary:
The Habsburg dynasty, one of the most prominent royal houses in Europe, originated in the 13th century and dominated much of central Europe for centuries, reaching its peak in the Austrian Empire. The Habsburgs became Holy Roman Emperors, expanded through strategic marriages, and eventually governed a vast and multi-ethnic empire. By the 19th century, however, the empire faced rising nationalism and significant internal pressures, notably during the revolutionary wave of 1848. This series of uprisings, sparked by demands for liberal reforms and greater autonomy, rocked the empire, particularly in Hungary and Italy. Hungary fought a bitter, year-long war for independence, while Italians sought to unify the Italian states, partially at Austrian expense. The empire survived, the Italians and Hungarian crushed, but was badly shaken. The revolutions brought the young emperor Franz Joseph I to the throne in 1848, who is still the now very old emperor of the empire.
The challenges of nationalism did not stop with 1848. In the 1850s and 1860s, Italy’s drive for unification under the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia led to conflicts, including the 1859 Second Italian War of Independence. Austria suffered losses, notably losing Lombardy to the new Italian Kingdom, who were backed by imperial France. Later, in 1866, Austria and Prussia went to war in the creatively named Austro-Prussian War. In a swift and decisive conflict, Prussia defeated Austria, ending Austria’s influence in German affairs and forcing it to re-evaluate its position. Austria now faced increasing difficulty managing its vast, diverse empire and sought ways to maintain stability.
A significant solution to these tensions was the 1867 Ausgleich, or Compromise, which transformed the Austrian Empire into the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy. This new arrangement granted Hungary substantial autonomy while linking it to Austria through a shared monarchy and foreign policy, with Franz Joseph as Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary. Although this dual structure stabilized the Hungarian situation, it created a complex political framework. While Austria and Hungary each had their own parliament and government, they shared certain key ministries, including foreign policy, military, and finance. This delicate balance allowed Hungary greater freedom but left other ethnic groups—such as the Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, and Serbs—feeling excluded and resentful. This fueled ethnic and nationalist conflicts, threatening the empire's unity.
In an increasingly nationalist Europe, Austria-Hungary’s multinational nature made it feel out of step with the emerging nation-states around it. Rather than a unified national identity, the empire was a patchwork of ethnicities, religions, and languages, held together by the Habsburg monarchy and a sprawling bureaucracy. Movements for independence and autonomy gained traction within various ethnic groups, particularly among Slavs in the empire’s southern regions who looked to neighboring Serbia for support and inspiration. Austria-Hungary, acutely aware of these internal tensions, was wary of any developments that might further destabilize its delicate balance, especially those involving Slavic populations.
These tensions drove Austria-Hungary to carefully monitor its borders, particularly in the Balkans. With the Ottoman Empire weakening, Austria-Hungary feared Russia would expand its influence over the Slavic regions, threatening Austrian authority. In response, Austria developed a foreign policy that sought to block Russian influence and maintain control over potential hotspots near its borders. To this end, Austria-Hungary cultivated a close relationship with Germany, forming the Austro-German alliance in 1879, a key pillar of the subsequent Triple Alliance, which also included Italy. These alliances were intended to protect Austria-Hungary from Russian aggression and stabilize its position as a central power in Europe.
In 1908, Austria-Hungary formally annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina, territories it had occupied since 1878. This move was intended to secure control over the Balkan territories with significant Slavic populations, but it enraged Serbia and alarmed Russia. Serbia regarded Bosnia as part of the greater Slavic nation, while Russia, as a protector of Slavs, felt obligated to support Serbian interests. Austria-Hungary’s annexation of Bosnia thus inflamed tensions in the Balkans, setting off a diplomatic crisis that nearly led to war. The annexation, while securing Austrian influence, also emboldened Slavic nationalism and further antagonized Serbia, which now viewed Austria as a significant obstacle to its aspirations.
By 1914, Austria-Hungary is somewhat of an anachronism in a Europe increasingly defined by nation-states. Governed by a traditional monarchy, it struggles to unify its multi-ethnic populations under a shared national identity. Ethnic rivalries, particularly between Germans, Hungarians, Slavs, and other groups, run deep. Within the government, the dual monarchy itself often lead to bureaucratic infighting and a lack of cohesion, with the Austrian and Hungarian sections of the government needing to agree to major decisions. Nationalism grows unchecked in many regions. Foreign policy, managed centrally from Vienna, remains focused on preserving Austria-Hungary’s integrity in the face of nationalist threats and external influences, particularly in the Balkans.
In the lead-up to the July Crisis, Austria-Hungary’s primary foreign policy goals were to protect its borders and curb Slavic nationalism. The empire viewed Serbian ambitions to unite Slavic peoples as a direct threat to its stability. Moreover, Austria-Hungary’s leaders believed that any sign of weakness might encourage independence movements among the empire’s ethnic groups. This need for strength and stability contributed to Austria-Hungary’s increasingly assertive stance towards Serbia and underpinned its alliance with Germany.
Russia:
The Russian Empire traces its origins to the Grand Duchy of Moscow, which emerged in the 15th century as a powerful state that would unite the Russian lands. By the early 17th century, after a period of political turmoil known as the Time of Troubles, the Romanov dynasty came to power, bringing stability and beginning a lineage that would rule Russia for over 300 years. Under the Romanovs, Russia expanded dramatically, stretching from Eastern Europe to the Pacific Ocean and building a vast, multi-ethnic empire. By the 19th century, Russia was one of Europe’s great powers, but it was also deeply autocratic, governed by a rigid monarchy with little room for political or social freedoms.
The Crimean War (1853-1856) marked a turning point in Russia’s self-image and its standing among the European powers. Russia suffered a humiliating defeat against an alliance of the British, French, and Ottoman Empires, exposing the shortcomings of its military and industrial capacity. The loss shattered Russia’s image as an invincible empire and highlighted its technological backwardness, as Russia's military was ill-equipped and poorly organized compared to its Western adversaries. This defeat fueled a desire among some in Russia to modernize and reform in order to restore its position in Europe.
In response, Tsar Alexander II undertook a series of significant reforms, known as the "Great Reforms." Most famously, he issued the Emancipation Edict of 1861, which freed Russia's serfs and sought to modernize the agrarian economy. He also introduced judicial reforms, restructured the military, and allowed for limited local governance through elected assemblies called zemstvos. However, while these reforms were ambitious, they only partially addressed the empire’s underlying issues, and the rigid autocracy remained fundamentally intact. Despite Alexander's efforts, pressures for greater reform persisted, as did demands for more freedoms, especially from the rapidly growing and increasingly discontented urban population.
As the Ottoman Empire weakened in the late 19th century, Russia saw an opportunity to expand its influence into the Balkans and fulfill its self-assigned role as a protector of Slavic and Orthodox Christian populations. This ambition culminated in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, fought in support of Slavic nationalist movements, particularly in Serbia and Bulgaria. Russia emerged victorious, securing favorable terms in the Treaty of San Stefano, which granted independence or autonomy to several Balkan states. However, Russia’s gains were largely curtailed by the subsequent Congress of Berlin, where European powers, wary of Russia’s growing influence, revised the treaty. This left a legacy of frustration in Russia and reinforced its sense of duty to support Slavic independence, especially in opposition to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which had its own claims in the Balkans.
The early 20th century brought increased calls for political reform and revolution in Russia. Discontent simmered among the peasantry, who felt neglected, and among the industrial working class, who faced poor conditions and limited rights. Intellectuals, liberal elites, and radical groups began to push for constitutional reforms, greater freedoms, and even the overthrow of the monarchy. These pressures grew more intense with Russia’s alliance with France in the 1890s, which, while diplomatically valuable, brought Western ideas and awareness of European political systems to Russia’s educated classes. By forming an alliance with France, Russia sought to counterbalance the Austro-German alliance and bolster its security, particularly in the face of German militarism and Austro-Hungarian ambitions in the Balkans.
However, Russia’s international ambitions took a severe blow in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). The war, fought over competing interests in Manchuria and Korea, ended in a disastrous defeat for Russia, shattering its image as a major power. The loss further exposed the weaknesses of Russia’s military and its inability to project power effectively in East Asia. This defeat also emboldened revolutionary forces within Russia, leading to the Revolution of 1905. Strikes, protests, and violent uprisings swept across the empire, culminating in Tsar Nicholas II’s reluctant issuance of the October Manifesto, which promised the creation of a parliament (the Duma) and limited civil liberties. Yet, the tsar retained extensive powers, and the promised reforms were only partially realized, leaving Russia politically unstable.
In the Balkans, Russia continued its policy of supporting Slavic nations against the influence of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. Russia backed Serbia and other Balkan states in their struggles, seeing itself as the protector of Slavs and Orthodox Christians. This stance became particularly evident during the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, in which Russia provided diplomatic support to the Balkan League as they successfully fought the Ottoman Empire. However, Russia was also cautious not to provoke a larger conflict, especially one that might involve Germany.
By 1914, Russia’s economy, and governmental systems remain largely antiquated compared to the Western European powers. The empire’s economy was still primarily agrarian, with industrialization progressing slowly and unevenly. Politically, the autocratic monarchy struggles to balance demands for reform with its need for control. This leaves Russia vulnerable to internal unrest, with revolutionary groups actively seeking change. In response to their defeat by Japan, Russia began a massive military buildup. While this process is not yet complete, Russia’s military has dramatically advanced. Russia’s military is the largest in Europe by far, but generally less well equipped and led then those of other nations.
As of 1914, Russia’s foreign policy was guided by a desire to reassert its status as a great power and to protect Slavic nations, particularly Serbia, from Austro-Hungarian influence. Russia’s alliances with France, in place since 1894 and Britain, in place since 1907, were central to its strategy, as they counterbalanced the Austro-German alliance and provided critical diplomatic and military support. Russia sees itself as a natural leader of the Slavic world and is committed to defending Slavic interests in the Balkans. After failing to stop Austria’s annexation of Bosnia, Russia feels the need to defend Serbia to the hilt, lest anyone think they can just be pushed around.
Germany:
Before unification, the German-speaking lands of Central Europe were divided into numerous independent kingdoms, duchies, and city-states, collectively known as the German Confederation. The most powerful of these were Prussia and Austria, both of which sought to influence the region. In the 19th century, rising German nationalism created a desire for a unified German state, which was driven in large part by Prussia under the leadership of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck recognized that a unified Germany would have to exclude Austria to avoid internal conflicts and ensure Prussian dominance.
The German Wars of Unification, led by Prussia, were a series of strategic conflicts that Bismarck used to achieve this vision. The first was the Danish War in 1864, in which Prussia and Austria jointly defeated Denmark and took control of the German-speaking duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. This set the stage for the Austro-Prussian War in 1866, where Prussia swiftly defeated Austria, excluding it from German affairs and consolidating Prussian leadership. Finally, the Franco-Prussian War in 1870-1871 was the culmination of Bismarck’s plan. Bismarck provoked France into declaring war, and Prussia’s victory galvanized the remaining German states to unify under Prussian leadership. In 1871, the German Empire was proclaimed, with King Wilhelm I of Prussia crowned as German Emperor in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles, a deeply symbolic act that humiliated France and stoked lasting French resentment. With Alsace and Lorraine now part of Germany, unification was complete, and Germany had emerged as a new European power.
As chancellor of the new German Empire, Bismarck focused on maintaining German security through a network of careful alliances and treaties designed to isolate France diplomatically and avoid a two-front war. Bismarck aimed to maintain stability in Europe and ensure Germany’s dominance without provoking neighboring powers. He secured alliances with Austria-Hungary and Italy, creating the Triple Alliance, and worked to keep Russia friendly through the Reinsurance Treaty, which promised neutrality in case of conflict with other countries. Bismarck’s approach was cautious and pragmatic, aiming to avoid risks and contain Germany’s ambition within Europe.
However, Bismarck’s careful diplomacy was largely abandoned by Kaiser Wilhelm II, who ascended to the throne in 1888. Unlike Bismarck, Wilhelm was ambitious, nationalistic, and intent on asserting Germany’s power on the global stage. He dismissed Bismarck in 1890 and pursued a more aggressive foreign policy, allowing the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia to lapse. This decision isolated Germany diplomatically, allowing France to form an alliance with Russia.
The Triple Alliance, initially formed by Bismarck with Austria-Hungary and Italy, was meant to provide Germany with security against France and to discourage other powers from challenging German interests in Europe. However, under Wilhelm II, Germany’s increasingly assertive foreign policy began to strain relations with its allies, especially as Germany’s ambitions clashed with those of Austria-Hungary and Italy in the Balkans and the Mediterranean.
Germany’s rapid industrialization in the late 19th and early 20th centuries transformed the nation into Europe’s leading economic power, with advanced steel production, manufacturing, and chemical industries. This economic strength fueled Germany’s ambitions, making it a formidable competitor to Britain, particularly in exports and technological advancements. Industrialization also contributed to Germany’s militarism, as the nation invested heavily in a powerful and modernized military.
With its newfound industrial power, Germany began to pursue colonial ambitions, seeking overseas territories to match those of other European powers like Britain and France. During the 1884-85 Congress of Berlin, which was convened by Bismarck to regulate European colonization of Africa, Germany acquired its first colonies, including territories in modern-day Namibia, Cameroon, Togo, and Tanzania. These conquest were marked with exploitation and atrocities, including the first genocide of the 20th century, against the Herero and Nama people in Namibia. These colonial possessions were economically marginal, but held symbolic value for Germany as markers of its status as a great power. However, Germany’s assertive entry into the colonial race created friction with established colonial powers and disrupted the balance Bismarck had worked to maintain.
One of Wilhelm’s most aggressive moves was his decision to challenge British naval supremacy, initiating a naval arms race between Germany and Britain. Wilhelm believed that a strong navy was essential for a global empire and for protecting Germany’s economic interests. Beginning in the 1890s, Germany invested heavily in building a fleet to rival Britain’s Royal Navy. Britain responded by increasing its own naval production, leading to a competitive buildup that strained relations between the two nations and drove Britain to form closer ties with France and Russia. The naval race heightened British fears of German expansionism and contributed to the formation of the Entente Cordiale with France in 1904, which was later expanded to include Russia, creating a powerful coalition opposed to the Triple Alliance. By 1912, Britain had decisively won the race, maintaining its status as the world’s leading naval power
By 1914, Germany’s military is one of the most advanced and efficient in Europe. The German army is well-trained, highly organized, and bolstered by modern weaponry. Germany’s foreign policy outlook in 1914 is shaped by a combination of insecurity, ambition, and militarism. Surrounded by potentially hostile powers, Germany feels vulnerable despite its powerful military and alliance with Austria-Hungary. The leadership under Wilhelm II is convinced that Germany deserves a more prominent place in global affairs, but this ambition frequently clashes with the interests of other European powers. The diplomatic isolation created by the lapse of Bismarck’s policies has left Germany reliant on its alliance with Austria-Hungary, feeling the need to back them for fear of complete isolation. Determined to assert itself as a leading power and confident in its military capabilities, Germany in 1914 is prepared to take risks to secure its future.
France:
France entered the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 under Emperor Napoleon III, expecting a quick victory over Prussia. However, the war turned into a devastating defeat for France, with Prussian forces decisively outmatching the French military. The conflict ended in early 1871 with France’s surrender and the signing of the Treaty of Frankfurt, through which France lost the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine to the newly unified German Empire. This territorial loss was a traumatic blow to France’s national pride, inspiring a desire for revenge and a long-term commitment to eventually regain Alsace-Lorraine. The defeat also led to the fall of the Second Empire and the rise of the Third Republic, marking a significant shift from monarchy to republic.
The Third Republic, established in 1870, was initially a fragile regime, balancing competing political factions between monarchists, Bonapartists, and republicans. Under national president and occasional battle rapper Adolphe Thiers, the government brutally suppressed the Paris Commune’s attempt to establish a socialist state. However, over time, it became more stable and embedded republican values deeply within French society. The new government emphasized secularism, civic duty, and the importance of a democratic, centralized state. Unlike many of its European counterparts, France now had a republican government, which, while occasionally unstable due to internal political disagreements, was broadly committed to representative governance and democratic principles. By the early 20th century, the Third Republic had fostered a strong national identity and sense of purpose, despite deep political divisions.
During this period, France also expanded its colonial empire significantly, becoming a dominant imperial power with territories across Africa, Southeast Asia, the Caribbean, and the Pacific. French leaders saw colonial expansion as essential for projecting power and prestige globally, as well as for economic benefits, such as access to resources and new markets. French colonialism was often brutal, involving exploitation, repression, and cultural erasure that devastated local populations. The colonies were frequently subject to forced labor, harsh taxation, and social upheaval, reflecting the dark nature of France’s imperial ambition. Nonetheless, the colonial empire became deeply ingrained in French identity, strengthening France’s global influence and bolstering national pride.
A key motivating factor in France’s foreign policy throughout this period was the desire to regain Alsace-Lorraine from Germany. Known as “revanchisme”, or revenge-seeking, this sentiment permeated French society and politics, creating a national focus on reclaiming the lost provinces. The memory of the Franco-Prussian War and the perceived injustice of losing French-speaking lands to Germany kept public opinion strongly in favor of a future confrontation, should the opportunity arise.
In the 1890s, France, isolated diplomatically by Bismark’s Germany, sought new alliances to counterbalance Germany’s growing power. This led to the Franco-Russian Alliance, an agreement born out of shared apprehensions about German expansionism, a common interest in containing Germany and Austria-Hungary, and Russia’s desire for French money to fund their industrialization projects. This alliance proved to be a major strategic shift for France, as it linked the nation’s fate with Russia’s interests, including in the Balkans. This Franco-Russian alignment was popular in both countries and effectively ensured that France would not face Germany alone if tensions erupted into war.
Meanwhile, France’s strategic focus on containing Germany led to diplomatic tensions with Germany over colonial matters, notably during the Moroccan Crises of 1905 and 1911. Germany, seeking to disrupt France’s influence in North Africa and test the strength of the alliance between France and Britain, challenged French claims over Morocco. Both crises heightened Franco-German antagonism and underscored the risks of German ambitions in Europe and Africa. However, the crises ultimately solidified the alignment of France with Britain, as Britain backed France’s position in Morocco, leading to greater mutual trust between the two countries.
In 1904, France and Britain signed the Entente Cordiale, a historic agreement that ended centuries of rivalry and established friendly diplomatic relations. While not a formal military alliance, the Entente Cordiale laid the groundwork for closer coordination, including military planning, against any German threat. The agreement marked a turning point, as it drew Britain closer to France and set the stage for eventual British support of French interests in the event of a European conflict. The Entente later expanded to include Russia, forming the Triple Entente, a counterweight to the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy.
The republican government of France in 1914 was characterized by a complex, multi-party system that encouraged free expression but often led to unstable coalitions and frequent changes in leadership. Nonetheless, the government was deeply committed to republican ideals, such as liberty, equality, and secularism, which resonated strongly with the public. This commitment helped foster a resilient national spirit and a pride in French democratic values, which contrasted with the monarchies and autocratic regimes of some neighboring countries.
By 1914, France’s foreign policy outlook is largely driven by a cautious yet firm stance against German aggression. Determined to protect its borders and preserve its alliance with Russia, France seeks to contain Germany diplomatically and militarily. France’s primary goals are to maintain the security of its own borders, support its allies, and prepare for a possible conflict to regain Alsace-Lorraine. French leaders are mindful of the risk of war but believe that France, backed by the Entente, can stand firm against German ambitions. With both a defensive posture and a readiness to fulfill its alliances, France is cautiously prepared for possible conflict.
The United Kingdom:
The United Kingdom emerged as the world’s foremost power in the 19th century due to its rapid industrialization, vast colonial empire, and unmatched naval strength. Industrialization began in Britain and transformed the country into an economic powerhouse, leading the world in manufacturing, trade, and innovation. This industrial dominance provided the financial and technological resources necessary to expand and maintain an enormous global empire. The British Empire is the largest in history, covering nearly a quarter of the Earth’s land and population and stretching from Canada and the Caribbean to India, Australia, and Africa. British leaders believed their empire brought stability and modernization, but for the colonized, British rule often meant exploitation, repression, and violence. Local economies and resources were subordinated to British interests, forced labor was common, and resistance to colonial rule was often met with harsh punishment.
Britain’s dominance also rested on the strength of the Royal Navy, which had no equal in terms of size and capability. Since the early 19th century, Britain adhered to the “Two-Power Standard”, aiming to keep its navy as strong as the next two largest navies combined. This policy has been softened somewhat by the meteoric rise of the United States navy, but the UK remains the strongest on earth. The navy protects British trade routes and colonial possessions, allowing Britain to control global commerce and project power almost anywhere. Britain’s unmatched naval supremacy became a point of national pride and a symbol of British security, creating a sense of invincibility that other powers found difficult to challenge.
Britain’s approach to foreign policy during the 19th century was characterized by splendid isolation, a strategy of avoiding formal alliances and entanglements in European affairs. British leaders saw little need to get involved in the continent’s shifting alliances and conflicts as long as their maritime dominance and colonial empire remained secure. Britain focused instead on maintaining a balance of power in Europe, intervening only when it seemed that one nation—such as Napoleonic France in the early 19th century or later Russia—might dominate the continent and threaten British interests. This approach kept Britain aloof from European rivalries and allowed it to concentrate on its empire and trade.
However, Britain’s foreign policy stance shifted in the early 20th century. Rising tensions with Russia and Germany led Britain to break from splendid isolation and pursue new alliances. The first of these was an alliance with Japan in 1902, motivated by Britain’s desire to safeguard its Asian possessions and counterbalance Russia’s influence in the Far East. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance allowed Britain to maintain a reduced naval presence in the Pacific and focus more on European concerns.
Increasingly alarmed by Germany’s military and naval expansion, Britain also took steps to strengthen ties with France and Russia. In 1904, Britain and France signed the Entente Cordiale, a diplomatic agreement that settled colonial disputes and created a foundation of trust between the two former rivals. This understanding grew into the Triple Entente with the inclusion of Russia in 1907, forming a counterweight to the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. While the Entente was not a formal military alliance, it signaled a commitment to cooperation, particularly against the threat of German expansion.
The naval arms race between Britain and Germany strongly affected European relations. In response to Germany’s naval expansion by constructing newer, more powerful ships, notably the Dreadnought class battleships, which reset the naval balance in Britain’s favor. This significantly worsened Anglo-German relations
Britain’s guarantee of Belgian neutrality is another critical factor in its foreign policy. Since the Treaty of London in 1839, Britain had pledged to protect Belgium’s independence and neutrality. The British saw Belgium as a vital buffer state; if Germany or France controlled Belgium, it would put Britain’s own security at risk, especially with Belgium so close to British ports, and so useful as a launching point for possible invasion. In 1914, Britain is arguably the least eager of the major powers to go to war. While Britain is committed to its alliances and mindful of Germany’s growing threat, it hopes to avoid open conflict through diplomacy if possible. The British public and political establishment are generally wary of European entanglements, and many still valued the idea of maintaining peace to focus on their global interests, not least because the current status quo, which might be shifted by war, is rather favorable to the UK.
Italy:
Italy in 1914 was a relatively young nation, having unified in a series of wars and uprisings known as the Risorgimento, or Italian Unification, between 1848 and 1871. Before unification, the Italian peninsula was divided into a patchwork of small states, many of which were dominated by foreign powers, including the Austrian Empire. Nationalists sought to unite these states into a single, independent nation, a goal that was spearheaded by the Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont, under the leadership of figures like Count Camillo di Cavour, Giuseppe Garibaldi, and King Victor Emmanuel II. After a series of wars and uprisings against Austrian, French, and Papal control, Italy gradually unified. By 1871, the Kingdom of Italy was established, with Rome as its capital. However, the newly united Italy faced deep internal divisions, poverty, and economic challenges, which limited its power relative to other European nations.
In 1882, Italy joined the Triple Alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Italy sought security and recognition as a major European power and hoped this alliance would strengthen its influence in Europe. However, the alliance was strained by Italy’s territorial ambitions; Italy coveted Austrian-held territories with large Italian populations, such as the Trentino and South Tyrol regions. Known as Italia Irredenta (“Unredeemed Italy”), these territories were seen as rightfully Italian and a symbol of Italy’s incomplete unification. Many Italian nationalists resented the alliance with Austria, viewing it as a temporary arrangement of convenience rather than a genuine partnership.
Italy’s ambitions also extended beyond Europe, as it sought to establish itself as a colonial power to compete with other European nations. In 1911, Italy launched the Italo-Turkish War against the Ottoman Empire to seize control of Libya and the Dodecanese Islands in the Mediterranean. Italy won the war and gained control over Libya, marking its first major colonial success. However, the campaign was brutal and costly, as Italian forces faced prolonged resistance from local populations. The Italo-Turkish War reinforced Italy’s desire to expand its influence but also underscored its relative weakness compared to other colonial powers. Although it now possessed colonies, Italy remained far less established as an imperial power than Britain or France. The war was also significant for the new style of warfare which it contained. It saw the debuts of the use of military aircraft, poison gas, and the dramatic expansion of the use of trench warfare.
Though a formal member of the Triple Alliance, Italy’s commitment to Austria-Hungary and Germany was lukewarm due to its longstanding territorial claims against Austria. Italy had even stipulated that it would only support the Triple Alliance in a defensive war, reserving the right to remain neutral if Austria-Hungary or Germany initiated an aggressive conflict. Italian leaders were also wary of being drawn into a conflict that might further strain Italy’s economy and military. Italy thus found itself torn between its formal alliance commitments and its desire to pursue its own national interests.
As of 1914, Italy’s foreign policy outlook is cautious and opportunistic. Italy hopes to expand its territory and influence without plunging into a costly and uncertain war. Italy is part of the triple alliance, but also seeks favorable terms from the Triple Entente in case the conflict offers a chance to claim Italia Irredenta without overly risking Italian lives and resources. Italy’s leaders see war as an opportunity, and Italy’s position in one of the most uncertain among the European powers.
The Day of the Assassination:
On the morning of June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife Sophie arrived in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia, for an official visit. The date, a Serbian national holiday commemorating the Battle of Kosovo, held symbolic weight for local Serbs, many of whom resented Austria-Hungary’s annexation of Bosnia in 1908. Among the crowd that gathered to watch the royal procession were conspirators from Young Bosnia, a nationalist group supported by the Black Hand. Franz Ferdinand was a figure with ideas to reform his empire, to make it more representative of its many nationalities. His heir apparent status was more than theoretical, as with his uncle the emperor 83 years old, he was likely to be emperor within a few years. He was also something of a pariah among his family, as Sophie was seen as not noble enough to be empress, forcing the removal of his children from the line of succession.
As the royal motorcade made its way through Sarajevo, one of the conspirators hurled a bomb at the Archduke's car. The device missed its target, exploding under another vehicle in the convoy and injuring several bystanders. Franz Ferdinand, shaken but unharmed, continued with his visit, insisting on checking on the wounded at the hospital. However, the motorcade’s altered route was not communicated clearly, and the Archduke’s driver inadvertently took a wrong turn. By grim coincidence, this brought the car to a halt in front of Gavrilo Princip, one of the conspirators who had abandoned hope of succeeding earlier that day. Seizing the unexpected opportunity, Princip stepped forward and fired two shots at close range. The first hit Franz Ferdinand in the neck. The second struck Sophie in the abdomen. Both bled to death within minutes, with the archduke reportedly murmuring, "Sophie, don't die. Stay alive for our children."
The Crisis begins:
While Austria-Hungary mourned its heir, its leaders deliberated on how to respond. In Vienna, the assassination was seen as not merely the act of a lone assassin but as part of a broader conspiracy supported by Serbia. This perception, fueled by evidence that Serbian military officers and elements of the Black Hand were involved, convinced Austria-Hungary’s leadership that Serbia must be punished. Over the next few weeks, Austria-Hungary sought assurances from its ally Germany. Kaiser Wilhelm II and his chancellor, Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, offered Austria-Hungary a so-called blank cheque of unconditional support on July 5. Germany believed a swift and strong response could isolate Serbia and deter its patron, Russia, without escalating into a broader conflict. Armed with this backing, Austria-Hungary began preparing a formal ultimatum for Serbia.
Meanwhile, Serbia’s leaders were not idle. Though there was no definitive proof linking the Serbian government to the assassination, it was aware of nationalist plots and harbored suspicions of Austria-Hungary’s intentions. Serbia looked to Russia, its protector and fellow Slavic nation, for support. Russian leaders, particularly Foreign Minister Sergei Sazonov, saw Austria’s moves as a threat to Slavic independence and Russian influence in the Balkans. While Tsar Nicholas II initially remained cautious, Russia began quietly signaling its readiness to back Serbia if necessary.
As the crisis deepened, diplomatic activity intensified. France, allied with Russia, was closely watching the developments. French President Raymond Poincaré visited St. Petersburg in mid-July, reaffirming the Franco-Russian alliance. Britain under Prime Minister H.H. Asquith tried to mediate, but the extent of the crisis was not yet fully apparent to the British public or government, which was presently concerned mostly with disputes over home rule in Ireland. Asquith vaguely proposed a conference of the major powers to resolve the matter diplomatically, but no concrete steps were taken.
Austria-Hungary finalized its ultimatum to Serbia on July 19. Its terms were harsh, including demands for the suppression of anti-Austrian propaganda, the dissolution of Serbian nationalist groups, and the participation of Austro-Hungarian officials in Serbian internal investigations. The ultimatum was nearly impossible to accept in full, placing demand on Serbian sovereignty both offensive to Serbia’s independence, and explicitly forbidden by its constitution. This ensured a pretext for military action. Vienna delayed its delivery until July 23 to avoid overshadowing Poincaré’s visit to Russia, ensuring France and Russia would not have time to coordinate a response.
On July 23, the ultimatum is formally delivered to Serbia, with a 48-hour deadline for compliance. By this time, the tension in Europe is palpable. As the deadline approached, the European powers faced a stark choice: escalation or restraint. While diplomats scramble to prevent war, the alliances and rivalries of the past decades loomed large, making compromise appear increasingly unlikely. What happens now is in your hands. Europe may descend into a war worse than any ever seen, or perhaps it will all be over by Christmas after all. Or perhaps war could be avoided entirely, with cooler heads prevailing and peace winning the day. All of Europe waits with bated breath for Serbia's response, and those of the other powers.
War:
The previous century witnessed a revolution in warfare. This was largely driven by technological changes, with the development of modern rifles, long-range artillery, and ironclad ships all playing their part. However, arguably the most significant technical innovations were the railroads and the telegraph. This enabled the moving of soldiers and equipment on an unprecedented scale and, and the coordination of those armies across vast distances. This was the first time that civilian leaders had a role in directly commanding forces from their capitals. At the same time, the rise of the modern nation-state, political mass mobilization, and industrial production allowed those armies to be of a much larger size than previously possible. All of this resulted in the dominant strategy of the late 19th century, which has become military conventional wisdom: mobilize faster than your enemy, strike with overwhelming might, and force a surrender. This was shown with terrifying effectiveness by Prussia during their wars to unify Germany, and remains the goal of every army. This results in a need for everyone to be the first to attack, and to prevent the enemy from mobilizing before you can.
However, there are also signs that this century’s wars might be somewhat different. Recent innovations, primarily the development of barbed wire, machine guns, and advances in artillery, all strongly favor the defender, suggesting that current military orthodoxy might not hold as true as once thought. The Crimean war and the American Civil war both descended into long-lasting slogs of misery and death when both sides entrenched themselves in difficult-to-attack positions. New-fangled airplanes offer new possibilities in espionage and intelligence, and the terrifying new weapon of poison gas has been used effectively in the Italo-Turkish war. Submarines prowl under the seas, ready to attack unsuspecting vessels, and transforming naval warfare forever. All of this suggest massive changes coming to the next war, if there must be such a war.
