The Origins of the World War BEFORE SARAJEVO - By SIDNEY BRADSHAW FAY ( 1928 )

PREFACE

WHEN the World War suddenly set Europe aflame and American public opinion, soon under the
influence of propaganda and war prejudice, began to denounce Germany and the Kaiser as
being guilty of causing it, the present writer refused to join in the chorus. His historical sense
told him that in this present case, as in the past, no one country or no one man was solely, or
probably even mainly, to blame. A little study of the documents in the Blue, Yellow and
Orange Books which were early issued by the English, French and Russian Governments
quickly convinced him that these documentary publications were by no means so complete and
reliable (though more so than the White and Red Books, issued by Germany and Austria) that
one could safely base sound and final conclusions upon them, as seemed to be believed by the
millions of men and women who read such facile and superficial arguments as those of Mr.
James M. Beck, and others who followed his cue. Therefore the present writer during the War
remained silent, except for his discussions of the subject in college class rooms.
When, however, the new socialist governments of Germany and Austria published in 1919 a
very complete collection of documents from the secret archives relating to the diplomatic crisis
of July, 1914, this seemed to provide material for reaching at last some tentative opinion about
the immediate causes of the War. These the present writer ventured to express in “New Light
on the Origins of the War” published in the American Historical Review in 1920-1921. This
called to the attention of scholars in this country the desirability of reconsidering opinions
formed during the heat of the battle as to the immediate responsibility of causing it. With the
publication of more documents, especially from the Russian sources, and with the refusal of the
French and British Governments to issue any such convincingly complete documentary record of their conduct in July, 1914, there soon arose a group of writers who demanded a “revision” of
that clause in the Treaty of Versailles declaring that Germany and her allies were solely
responsible. With some of these writers—especially with some of the anti-Poincaré revisionists
in France—the pendulum of opinion has been in danger of swinging nearly as far away from the
golden mean of historical truth as in the case of those who formerly followed in the
propagandist path of Mr. Beck.
The present writer is no more inclined to accept the arguments of the former than of the latter.
In the pages which follow he has no political motive, either to justify the Treaty of Versailles or
to demand its revision but simply to carry out what a great master has defined as the proper task
of the historian—to tell how it really came about. He has written, he hopes, sine ira ac studio.
If he has made infrequent citations from the mass of controversial literature which has grown up
in regard to the origin of the wax, this is not because he has not read a very considerable part of
it, but because he wishes to avoid controversy and reach his conclusions as far as possible from
documentary evidence. The mass of documentary and autobiographical material is now so great that it affords either of two possibilities. On the one hand, a writer by centering attention on the
acts of any one man or country, and by picking out passages in the documents to support his
contention, can easily make a seemingly convincing argument for the uninitiated, that this or
that man or country was altogether angelic or devilish in motives and methods. On the other
hand, a writer may conscientiously try to look fairly at all sides of the question, explain acts
from the point of view of the actors themselves instead of from that of their champions or
enemies, and try to reach an unbiassed judgment. Needless to say it is the latter possibility
which is attempted in the present volume. With what success, the reader must judge.
In the troublesome matter of transliterating Slavic proper names the best practice of American
libraries has been followed, so far as is possible, without the use of diacritical marks. But in the
case of some Russian names of German origin, like Schilling for Shilling, and in a few Serbo-
Croat names, such as Princip for Printsip, popular usage has been allowed to prevail over proper
practice.
Quotations from the documents and foreign works are usually made from direct translations
from the original, rather than from translations into English which have been made by others.
This is because the latter are sometimes abridged, or because the present writer made his
translation prior to the publication of other translations, or because he prefers his own rendering
to that of others. If the quotations from the documents are often tediously long, it is because he
wishes to avoid as far as possible picking out phrases or sentences which might give a suggestio
falsi or suppressio veri. In some cases, for the sake of brevity, prolix phrases and titles have been curtailed or omitted; “Austria,” for instance, has been commonly used in place of “Austria-
Hungary.”