Rema on Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg

“This war torments me. Again and again I ask if it could have been avoided and what I should have done differently. ... [A]ll nations are guilty; Germany, too, bears a large part of the blame.”

“When assessing the responsibility for this war—we have to confess honestly that we bear a share of the guilt. If I said this thought oppresses me, I would say too little—this thought never leaves me. I live in it.”

“Should war break out, it will result from Russian mobilization ab irato, before possible negotiations. In that case we could hardly sit and talk any longer, because we have to strike immediately in order to have any chance of winning at all.”

“We must maintain Austria proper. Were Russia to unleash the South Slavs, we would be lost. ... If the Serbian quarrel passes without Russian mobilization, we can safely come to an understanding with the Tsar, [who will be] disappointed in the Western powers, once Austria is satisfied.”

“This evening I have most energetically declared to the Viennese cabinet that Germany will not swim in Austria's wake in the Balkans. Should Vienna reply affirmatively I still do not despair for peace. Sad to say, through quasi-elemental forces and the persistent poisoning of relations among the cabinets, a war desired by no one might be unleashed.”

“Lord yes, in a certain sense it was a preventive war, [motivated by] the constant threat of attack, the greater likelihood of its inevitability in the future, and by the military's claim: today war is still possible without defeat, but not in two years! Yes, the generals. It could only have been avoided by a rapprochement with England, that is still my conviction. But after we had decided for a [common] policy with Austria, we could not desert her in such danger.”

“All these attempts on which, as he well knew, I had worked incessantly, were wrested from me. And by whom? By England; and why? Because of Belgian neutrality! Can this neutrality which we violate only out of necessity, fighting for our very existence, and with the express assurance that we will repay any damage, if Belgium lets us march through—can this neutrality and the way in which it is threatened, really provide the reason for a world war? Compared to the disaster of such a holocaust does not the significance of this neutrality dwindle into a scrap of paper?”

“It is a crime that Russia has forced war upon us while we are still mediating between Vienna and Petersburg, and a Franco-Russia war against Germany is enough of a disaster. ... This war turns into an unlimited world catastrophe only through England's participation. It was in London's hands to curb French revanchism and pan-Slav chauvinism. Whitehall has not done so, but rather repeatedly egged them on. Now England actively helps them. Germany, the Emperor, and the government are peace-loving. That the ambassador knows as well as I do. We enter the war with a clear conscience, but England's responsibility is monumental.”

“[We are confronted with our] old dilemma at every Austrian action in the Balkans. If we encourage them, they say we pushed them into it. If we discourage them, they say we left them in the lurch. Then they will throw themselves into the open arms of the Western powers and we lose our last important ally. ... [My predicament is] worse than in 1912, because this time Austria is on the defensive against Serbo-Russian intrigues. ... An attack on Serbia can lead to world war. [Any general conflagration] however it ends [will lead] to a revolution of all existing conditions. ... The future belongs to Russia which grows and grows, looming above us as an increasingly terrifying nightmare. ... Perhaps the old Emperor [Francis Joseph] will prefer not to fight after all. If war comes from the east so that we have to fight for Austria-Hungary and not Austria-Hungary for us, we have a chance of winning. ... [I]f war does not break out, if the Tsar is unwilling or France, alarmed, counsels peace, we have the prospect of splitting the Entente.”