The Sleepwalkers - Book Summary

Uncover the seeds of World War I and question its inevitability

The calendar flipped to 2014 and the world marked a somber centenary — it was exactly a century since the horrific onset of World War I. Yet, even after a hundred years, the genesis of the Great War remains shrouded in complexity and misunderstanding.

Step into the shoes of the world's history detectives as you unravel the convoluted series of events leading up to World War I. It all started with a fatal bullet fired by a member of the Serbian nationalist group, Black Hand — leading to the death of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his beloved spouse.

This horrifying incident acted as a domino, tipping over a line of political disputes and setting off a catastrophic chain reaction. Austria-Hungary, feeling its dignity marred and thirsting for vengeance, unleashed an ultimatum on Serbia. Failing to find their demands satisfied, they rang the war bells, a move that set off a ripple effect, causing Russia, Germany, and subsequently, France, to prepare their armies for battle.

Navigate through this intricate maze of global politics, where each nation donned the role of a strategic chess player, making calculated yet aggressive moves. Understand the motives behind each nation's actions, and watch the scenario escalate into a full-blown war.

In this narrative journey, you will get insights into:

- The intricacies of international politics that transformed a regional conflict into a worldwide warfare.

- The underlying reasons why several countries felt the urgency to wage a war.

- The complex interplay that made it a Herculean task for any country to foresee and plan for their counterparts' next move.

Discover how tangled alliances and power politics sparked the flames of World War I

World War I — a monumental disaster of the twentieth century that saw nations and their colonies entangled in a deadly web of violence, leading to millions of casualties. But what lit the fuse to this catastrophic event? Who held the matchstick of blame?

There's no simple answer to these questions, but many historians attribute the outbreak of war primarily to a complex alliance system — a diplomatic spiderweb that connected each nation in a pact of support or opposition. An intricate network of treaties bound the European powers, where an attack on one nation essentially equated to an attack on all its allies.

Let's illustrate with an example. Serbia, a tiny player on the political chessboard, relied on Russia for protection against potential Austrian aggression. Austria, in turn, found security in its alliance with Germany, that vowed to counter any threat to Austria. And then, there was Russia, leaning on its pact with France to guard against Germany's menace.

Oddly enough, this system, designed to deter conflict, actually magnified the underlying risks in the volatile sphere of European politics. Should a fire of war ignite in one corner, the alliance network could fan its flames, engulfing the entire European continent.

The danger escalated further due to the system's ties with Europe’s most unstable arenas, such as the Balkans. Nestled in the southeast corner of Europe, the Balkans was once under the Ottoman Empire's thumb. But as the empire crumbled, a power vacuum formed. Sensing an opportunity, both Austria and Russia set their sights on extending their influences into this region, even if it required force.

The situation in the Balkans was further complicated by its ethnic diversity. Slavs, Germans, Bosnians, Hungarians, Romanians, and Bulgarians lived side by side, in a complex mosaic of cultures. This cultural cocktail made the region difficult to govern and prone to volatility — a ticking time bomb in the heart of Europe.

Discover how the shifting alliances turned Europe into a tinderbox ready to ignite

The elaborate network of alliances was initially devised as a deterrent against war. However, as the diplomatic landscape morphed, this system evolved into large, polarized factions. This unintentionally stoked the embers of conflict that eventually ignited the Great War in 1914.

In the not-so-distant past, around 1887, Europe was a network of multiple, interlocking alliances, designed to diffuse and manage any outbreaks of conflict. At the heart of each alliance sat a neutral power, a diplomatic firefighter whose interests were vested in restoring peace.

A noteworthy example includes the Triple Alliance formed in the 1880s between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. Additionally, Great Britain held its separate Mediterranean Agreements with Austria and Italy, while Russia and Germany were bound by a Reinsurance treaty.

Yet, over time, the political landscape began to pivot. The multiple intersecting alliances gave way to two blocs — the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente, aligning Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy against Great Britain, France, and Russia. This polarizing shift, devoid of neutral nations, set the stage for the horrific theater of World War I. Several smaller nations also found themselves caught up in these alliances. For instance, Belgium was tethered to Great Britain through a treaty.

The fuse of conflict was lit on June 28, 1914, when Serbian nationalists assassinated the Austrian Crown Prince Franz Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo. The assassination, as shocking as it was, served as a trigger that unleashed a fast-paced chain reaction. Within months, the localized conflict between Serbia and Austria had engulfed the entire continent — and the world followed suit.

But could the nations involved have done more to prevent the unfolding catastrophe? As we delve deeper, let's examine the role each country played in this tragedy.

Unravel how Germany and Austria-Hungary's actions escalated a crisis into a global conflict

Historically, it's been believed that Austria, fueled by German encouragement and in retaliation to the assassination of their Crown Prince, intimidated and eventually declared war on Serbia. This essentially sparked a series of events leading to a global calamity. But is this blame warranted? In part, yes.

In the aftermath of the assassination, the Austrian government indeed maneuvered towards conflict with Serbia, seemingly oblivious to the wider implications. They presented Serbia with an ultimatum composed of demands so extreme that it appeared Austria was not seeking a just resolution, but a fight.

Their list included conditions that were essentially an affront to Serbia's sovereignty — like the forcible removal of any Serbian military and civilian personnel whom Austria deemed unfit, and the entry of Austrian security forces into Serbia. These terms were entirely unacceptable for a sovereign state, making it clear that Austria sought conflict. Entries from the diaries of Austrian diplomats corroborate this intention — war with Serbia was their aim.

And they did get their war — Austrian forces invaded Serbia soon after the ultimatum. However, their strategic myopia caused them to overlook the fact that Russia, being an ally of Serbia, would jump to Serbia's defense.

Austria wasn't alone in escalating the crisis. Germany played a pivotal role, not only encouraging Austria to send the ultimatum but also pledging its unwavering support. In defense of Germany, they believed Austria had every right to demand an investigation into the Sarajevo murders, and they were unaware of the severity of the demands Austria would put forth. However, Germany did nothing to limit the ultimatum's severity, nor did they insist on reviewing it before it was issued.

As evidenced, Germany and Austria bear considerable responsibility in triggering the war. But as we'll uncover in the upcoming part of this narrative, they weren't the only culprits.

Examining the culpability of Russia and France in the onset of the war

The common narrative usually highlights the roles Germany and Austria played in inciting the war, but it's essential not to overlook the parts played by Russia and France.

Neither Russia nor France regarded Austria-Hungary as a power equal to themselves, resulting in their blatant disregard for Austria's concerns. Despite the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the possible role of Serbia in this event, Russia and France outrightly refused to acknowledge Austria’s right to inquire into the matter.

There were numerous indications that pointed towards Serbia's involvement in the assassination, potentially implicating high-ranking Serbian officials. But both France and Russia denounced Austria’s attempts to engage in a dialogue about these issues with the Serbian government or any other nation.

Their disdain for Austria stemmed from their perception of Austria as a lesser power in Europe, an empire on the verge of disintegration.

Russia's role, however, did not end with its dismissive attitude towards Austria. As the shadow of war grew darker between Austria and Serbia, Russia played a significant part in making sure Serbia rejected Austria's ultimatum, thereby halting any chance for further negotiations.

When war finally erupted, Russia escalated it further. As soon as Austria declared war on Serbia, Russia retaliated by mobilizing its troops against Austria. They fanned the flames of the wider European conflict by positioning their troops along the German border.

France, not to be left behind, egged Russia on to respond aggressively to Austria's ultimatum. Amidst the burgeoning dispute between Serbia and Austria, the French President Poincaré made a trip to St. Petersburg. During this visit, he assured Russia of France's full support should a war arise between Russia and Germany.

While it may not be customary to attribute blame for the war's onset to France and Russia, it's clear they significantly contributed to escalating the conflict and stirring the cauldron of war.

Diving into the common sentiment that war was an inescapable reality

Till now, we've been observing the progression of the war from the perspective of nations' actions. But remember, nations, in essence, are abstract concepts. They are composed of individuals — their governments, their societies — who eventually make the call to march into the battlefield.

To truly grasp how the Great War unfolded, we must probe into the prevalent public opinions of that era.

A significant segment of the populace firmly believed in the looming specter of a European war. This sentiment echoes through several diary entries of that time, as well as in speeches delivered by diplomats and policymakers.

In 1910, Viscount Esher, a renowned English political commentator and an advisor to King Edward VII, remarked, "The idea of a prolonged peace is an idle dream."

This somber view was common and gave birth to a form of "defensive patriotism." That is, people didn't so much embrace the impending war as resigned themselves to its inevitability, hoping to end up on the victorious side when the dust settled.

This notion of an inescapable war significantly influenced numerous political decisions.

Every strategy that was devised, every paper that was penned, meticulously planned for the potential outbreak of war. Military heads frequently leveraged the dread of an impending war to justify increased military budgets, thereby reinforcing the idea that war was a foregone conclusion.

Take Germany, for instance. In a relatively short span, its military expenditure surged, constituting 3.8 percent of the nation's GDP by 1912.

The alliance between France and Russia included detailed agreements and emergency strategies for a potential war against Germany.

European political leaders were so convinced of an impending war that they didn't even bother exploring ways to avert it altogether.

Uncovering how policymakers across nations favored an early war

With the ghost of war haunting every corner of Europe, a unanimous sentiment began to emerge: if war is inescapable, it would be better for it to occur sooner rather than later.

What led the policymakers from different countries to align on this viewpoint? Let's delve into each nation's reasoning.

Germany, in the years preceding 1914, was keeping a wary eye on Russia's expanding military might. Russia was adding men to its army and enhancing its weaponry at an alarming pace.

German diplomats and spies conveyed this information back home, although some reports rather exaggerated the growth of Russia's military power.

This information stirred anxiety within the German government, convincing them that victory over Russia in a war was only feasible if the confrontation happened in the next few years. Any later, and Russia's strength would be insurmountable.

Russia's burgeoning power also caused a ripple of discomfort within its ally, France.

The French government was apprehensive that the rapidly ascending Russia would soon abandon its need for an alliance with France. This could leave France in a vulnerable and isolated position in global politics.

Thus, for France, if a war with Germany was inevitable, it was in its interest for the war to commence sooner, before Russia ended their partnership.

On Russia's end, while its military prowess was on the rise, it was grappling with several international issues as it was stretched thin across multiple fronts.

Besides the tension with various European nations, Russia was also contending with Chinese resentment and disputes with the Ottoman Empire over the usage of the "Turkish Straits," which were crucial for Russia's economic survival.

For several Russian politicians, war seemed to be a quick remedy for the European issues. They believed a war could provide Russia with the necessary time and resources to manage its other disputes.

A careful examination of each country's political and economic scenario reveals how these circumstances, intertwined with their respective political alliances, crafted a tapestry of impending war.

Many people didn't desire a war. But, if a war was seen as unavoidable, they preferred it to transpire sooner rather than later. This predisposition arguably had as much influence on the manner and timing of the war's outbreak as the actual political climate did.

Understanding the role of disorganized governments and misinformation in global anticipation

As we dissect the actions of politicians and diplomats leading up to World War I, one question is particularly perplexing: Why were some countries grossly mistaken in predicting others' actions? Why didn't Austria foresee Russia's retaliation to its invasion of Serbia? Why did Russia mobilize against Germany when its actual discord was with Austria?

A significant cause of this can be traced back to the chaotic state of governments in many countries.

One key source of confusion was the undefined role and power of monarchies in each nation.

During this era, despite the presence of elected parliaments, monarchs still held their place in most European countries. They still wielded a certain degree of power and influence over significant figures, but their extent of authority was often ambiguous, leading to widespread confusion.

Take German Emperor Wilhelm II, for example. He often pursued independent endeavors and communicated with the rulers and diplomats of other nations, expressing his personal opinions on international politics.

Consequently, other nations were left puzzled about whether or not his communications truly represented the official stance of Germany.

Further complications arose as diplomats and foreign offices frequently used the media to release unofficial statements.

Though unofficial statements were common, these articles often failed to disclose that they were authored by official authorities. This led to great confusion over which statements were official and which were not.

Adding to the maze of misinformation, newspapers were occasionally used to "test" new viewpoints and gauge public reaction. So, even when it was evident that an article was written by government officials, it was uncertain whether it truly represented the official line.

Again, this misrepresentation in the media created significant hurdles for foreign politicians in discerning what other nations were contemplating and strategizing.

The setting in 1914 was akin to a ticking time bomb. The complex web of alliances, the widespread sentiment that war was imminent, and the numerous factors that complicated international relations — all contributed to the belief that war was inevitable.

But was it really so?

Piercing through the veil of unreliable alliances

To gauge the inevitability of World War I, it's crucial to scrutinize a leading catalyst for its onset: the alliance system that led to a stark polarization of Europe.

Contrary to popular perception, these alliances weren't ironclad but rather quite susceptible to change.

The alliances were less the result of longstanding bonds between nations and more the offspring of political expediency. As the political landscape transformed, so did the alliance system.

A case in point is Russia. Initially, Russia supported Bulgaria, but later shifted its allegiance to Serbia—Bulgaria's rival—simply because it was more congruent with their broader strategy.

Several other instances underscore this fickleness:

Firstly, Serbia was predominantly allied with Austria-Hungary, not Russia. This alliance was primarily due to Russia's association with Bulgaria, Serbia's rival.

To make amends for severing the alliance, Serbia brokered various trade agreements and contracts with Austria. It was only in 1906, when Austria sought new trade pacts with Bulgaria, that these agreements came to an end.

Secondly, England was uncertain about the longevity of its alliance with Russia.

Even though England and Russia shared certain interests in Europe, they were adversaries on a global scale, especially in several colonies. Russia was making efforts to extend its influence to India, a major colony of the British Empire.

Due to this veiled rivalry and the fact that numerous Russian policymakers deemed conflicts at the eastern border more crucial, the duration of the Triple Entente was uncertain.

Had the crisis transpired earlier or later, it's possible that the war might have been averted.

But given the timing of the crisis, was war truly inescapable?

Valiant efforts were made to resolve the crisis peacefully, even in the eleventh hour.

The assassination of Austria's Franz Ferdinand came as a staggering blow and ignited a severe crisis.

However, contrary to the pervasive belief that all peace prospects had been extinguished, several political leaders were making concerted efforts to resolve the crisis amicably.

In fact, some nations were hesitant about entering the war. Take Great Britain for instance: it delayed its involvement in the war for a considerable time, pushing both factions to halt the escalating tension. British Foreign Minister Edward Grey went as far as to send telegrams to Germany and France cautioning them about the repercussions of their hasty actions.

Germany, too, despite the complete mobilization of Russian forces along its border, hesitated before initiating its own mobilization. Why this hesitation? Certain German politicians feared the fallout of a Europe-wide war and were aiming to defuse the situation.

Several political leaders of various countries tried to leverage their influence to coax other nations into halting their military advancements and to instead seek a more peaceful resolution.

For instance, soon after Russia's call to arms, German Emperor Wilhelm—also a cousin to the Russian Tsar—sent a telegram urging him to call off the mobilization against Austria and Germany.

Wilhelm suggested that he mediate between the two nations, negating the need for war. On hearing this, the Tsar suspended Russia’s mobilization.

Regrettably, the Tsar was later persuaded by his military leaders to reverse his decision. They argued that attempts to prevent the war at this juncture were futile as the war seemed inevitable, and that any disruption or delay in the mobilization process would leave Russia open to attack.

So, one could argue that Europe's fate hung in the balance until the very end, as, even amidst the frenzy of mobilization and armament, some were striving to steer towards a peaceful path.

Deciphering old historical sources presents an arduous task.

We've delved into countless specifics and debates concerning the inception of World War I.

However, numerous aspects remain vague. Drawing clear-cut conclusions about the war based solely on antiquated historical sources is an uphill task for several reasons.

Firstly, the sheer volume of material and literature on this topic is daunting, making it nearly impossible to condense into one conclusive narrative.

Take, for instance, German scholars have churned out a monumental fifty-seven-volume study on the war, comprising 15,889 documents. And this constitutes merely one among the countless publications on the subject.

Secondly, a considerable portion of significant documents has either been lost or intentionally destroyed. Many political leaders' diaries from that era have missing entries for pivotal days such as the initial days of the war. Some documents were purposely eliminated to mask the part that specific politicians and nations played in the war's genesis.

Thirdly, the situation was made more complicated by the multitude of players, each with its unique history and motivations. For example, Russia's burgeoning military prowess incited France, an ally, to engage in war. France feared that Russia would discard the alliance once it became redundant. This contrasts starkly with the Cuban missile crisis—which, despite its complexity and extensive debates, had only two main protagonists: the USA and the Soviet Union.

France's motive represents just a tiny fraction of the intricate manner in which two nations can affect each other. In the crisis leading to the Great War, numerous nations were interacting with each other.

Owing to the multitude of hurdles and impediments in conducting research, we may never fully comprehend all the pieces of the puzzle that culminated in World War I. However, we can make a concerted effort to learn from the known facts and reasons.

Wrapping it up

The core takeaway from this book:

The intricate alliance system and subsequent divide of European nations was a major catalyst for the inception of World War I. The popular narrative perceived war as a foregone conclusion and based on that premise, chose to engage in war early to sidestep potential hitches later on. Nonetheless, the endeavors of several influential figures indicate that many were making earnest attempts until the last moment to prevent the war.