The Sleepwalkers Summary

Could the First World War have been avoided, or were nations bound by accidents of history and misjudgment to march to their doom?

1. Alliances Fueled Global Conflict

The European alliance system significantly contributed to the conditions that precipitated the First World War. Nations pledged to support each other in the event of conflict, creating chains of obligation that escalated localized disputes into multinational crises. Serbia's alliance with Russia, Austria-Hungary's partnership with Germany, and Russia's ties to France established a web of interdependence that made neutrality almost impossible.

Far from preventing conflict, these alliances heightened the risk of global war. Austria's aggressive moves against Serbia automatically provoked Russian involvement, which in turn pulled Germany and France into the fray. Each nation acted not solely out of self-interest but out of a fear of failing their allies.

The Balkans exemplified this dynamic with its myriad nationalities and competing powers. Austria and Russia sought to dominate the region, while Serbia fought for independence and influence. The resulting tensions turned the Balkans into a powder keg, igniting when alliances activated.

Examples

• Serbia counted on Russia to counteract Austria's aggression.
• Austria's ultimatum to Serbia included demands Russia deemed unacceptable, pulling both into conflict.
• France's support of Russia ensured German engagement on a second front.

2. Polarization Replaced Diplomacy

By 1914, Europe was split into two opposing blocs: the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy) and the Triple Entente (France, Britain, and Russia). This division replaced earlier, cooperative agreements with mutual hostility and suspicion, making every move seem like a step toward war.

With alliances fixed, acts of aggression could no longer be managed locally. Germany, for example, worried that delaying war would strengthen the Entente powers against them later. To protect their interests, powers in both camps pushed for preparations that mirrored offensive postures.

This polarization also made peace negotiations harder. Countries perceived any compromise as a potential loss of future advantage. Rather than working to rebuild trust, they continuously sought reassurances through arms build-ups and military drills.

Examples

• Britain had previously mediated conflicts, but by 1914, its commitment to the Triple Entente overtook its neutrality.
• Italy, despite joining the Triple Alliance, eventually shifted sides due to these changing dynamics.
• Germany’s Schlieffen Plan reflected their assumption that fighting both France and Russia was inevitable.

3. Austria and Germany Encouraged War with Serbia

After the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Austria fanned the flames by issuing Serbia an inflammatory ultimatum. Germany supported this decision without realizing the repercussions it would have on Russia and beyond. Austria framed its demands for Serbia in such a way that refusal seemed inevitable, leaving war as the logical next step.

Germany’s involvement demonstrated overconfidence and miscalculation. The Kaiser’s government supported Austria, presupposing swift victory and minimal resistance. However, they miscalculated Russia’s determination to back Serbia and underestimated the ripple effects in Europe and globally.

Austria pursued belligerence with a narrow focus on Serbia, ignoring the broader context of alliances. They didn’t anticipate Russia's mobilization or its swift ally-to-ally support, and this escalated a single aggression into multi-continental warfare.

Examples

• Austria demanded Serbian compliance with excessive restrictions like accepting Austrian police on Serbian soil.
• Germany’s "blank check" guaranteed unconditional support to Austria.
• Russia began mobilization to support Serbia even before diplomatic negotiations concluded.

4. France and Russia Contributed to Tensions

France and Russia's actions also fueled unease and accelerated the march to war. France spurred Russia to be more assertive, assuring its ally of unwavering support if Germany intervened in Austria's conflict with Serbia. This hardened Russia's stance and made escalation more likely.

Russia asserted itself rapidly but in ways that spurred paranoia. Mobilizing on the German border while formally aligned with Serbia created confusion about its actual target. Germany perceived this as a double threat necessitating action.

Both nations underestimated Austria, treating it dismissively. Rather than addressing Austria's grievances over the assassination seriously, they dismissed efforts to connect Serbia to the crime. This undermined diplomatic efforts and emboldened Austria further.

Examples

• France’s Poincaré visited Russia to pledge full military support just before war erupted.
• Russia’s mobilization extended beyond Serbia to Austrian and German borders.
• Serbian officials implicated in Franz Ferdinand's death stoked questions Austria considered ignored by Russia and France.

5. Many Believed War Was Inevitable

Policymakers and the public viewed European war as unavoidable. This belief wasn’t grounded in overt enthusiasm but resignation. Defensive patriotism grew, as countries focused on preparing for an unavoidable war rather than working toward lasting peace.

Leaders rationalized military growth under the assumption that whoever struck first would hold the upper hand. Militarism increased as preparation transformed into strategy. While war wasn’t celebrated, it was prepared for with meticulous detail.

This inevitability shaped nations’ actions in ways that reinforced the very conditions predicting war. Diplomacy was discounted, effort focused on timing rather than prevention. Governments acted preemptively rather than risk perceived vulnerabilities.

Examples

• By 1910, British and German politicians spoke of peace as unlikely long-term.
• Germany and Russia increased military budgets significantly by the early 1910s.
• Treaty-based emergency plans guided states’ moves, precluding peaceful alternatives.

6. Immediate War Was Seen as Preferable

Many nations calculated that earlier war was better than later. Germany worried about Russia’s increasing military capabilities, which would later outweigh Europe’s defensive preparations. Preemptive action, therefore, seemed advantageous to them.

France feared losing Russia as an ally; Russian strength could eventually allow it to outgrow its need for French support. Hence, France urged Russia not to hesitate in taking decisive action, even if this meant war with Germany.

Russian strategists also saw timing as critical. They sought to resolve European tensions quickly to free resources for challenges with China and the Ottoman Empire. The rush toward early war condensed timelines across Europe.

Examples

• French diplomacy during the July Crisis promoted Russia’s speedy mobilization.
• Germany’s Schlieffen Plan accounted for French neutrality’s expiration date.
• Rising Russian influence pressured other powers to act prematurely.

7. Misinformation and Confusion Clouded Judgment

Diplomatic efforts suffered from unclear communication. Monarchies, while diminished in real authoritative power, still created confusion with unilateral diplomatic attempts or public correspondence that didn’t conform to official policy.

Relying on media as both propaganda and policymaking tool also muddied water. Governments leaked unofficial positions without authorship attribution, blurring who spoke on behalf of nations.

Such uncertain messaging made misjudgment routine. By underestimating potential retaliation from rivals, multiple states failed to anticipate alliances multiplying hostilities across borders.

Examples

• German Emperor Wilhelm II sent conflicting diplomatic messages via letters.
• European powers expressed views through biased media outlets seen as semi-official.
• Russian and British statements tested political waters without firm policy backing.

8. Alliances Were Flexible, Not Fixed

Though alliances helped spread the war, they weren’t immutable. Nations joined or adapted alliances opportunistically. Serbia’s shift from Austria to Russia and England’s uncertain stance regarding Russia highlight how alliances changed with context.

These shifts suggest alternate scenarios had timing differed. A few years earlier or later, Europe’s alliances might have looked different, altering the war’s likelihood.

Key alliances had minimal continuity beyond immediate crises. The entangled agreements leading to 1914 weren’t fixed across decades, showing war outcomes depended on more than assumed inevitabilities.

Examples

• Serbia’s early trade relations with Austria ended after Balkan rivalries peaked.
• Italy claimed neutrality despite its presence in the Triple Alliance initially.
• Britain remained flexible because of its colonial concerns.

9. Peace Was Attempted Until the End

Even as hostilities mounted, many leaders pursued peace almost up to the outbreak of war. Germany hesitated to mobilize, and Britain delayed its commitment while pursuing negotiation.

Nicholas II of Russia briefly halted mobilization after receiving communication from his cousin Wilhelm II. However, counsel from war-hungry generals undid this temporary cease in escalation.

While broader forces overpowered these efforts, their existence challenges the inevitability narrative entirely. Diplomacy competed with reckless escalation, leaving peace possible but improbable.

Examples

• British leaders avoided aligning with France for weeks to preserve peace.
• Germany’s delayed troop mobilization showed lingering hesitation.
• Russia’s Tsar canceled troop mobilization momentarily on Germany's urging.

Takeaways

1. Avoid rigid alliances; keep diplomatic channels flexible to avoid automatic escalations.
2. Encourage transparent communication between nations to prevent misjudged intentions or responses.
3. Invest in preemptive efforts to de-escalate crises, no matter how inevitable conflict might appear.