Seite - 65 - in THE FIRST WORLD WAR - and the End of the Habsburg Monarchy, 1914 – 1918

Dual Alliance and Triple Alliance 65 matter not only more complicated but above all more fragile, and one must repeatedly pose the question as to whether what had once been agreed on would actually hold, if need be. Eventually, another partner sprang from the Triple Alliance, although it never for- mally joined the alliance : Romania. It sought dependence on the Triple Alliance due to its occasionally very fraught relations with Bulgaria and Russia, though it itself as- sumed relatively few obligations. And it attached particular importance to its assistance contract with the Triple Alliance powers remaining secret. Admittedly, the Second Balkan War dramatically obscured the relationship between the Danube Monarchy and Romania, and all the ongoing attempts until mid-1914 and, ultimately, up to 1916, to improve relations were able to change nothing of substance. The most visible sign of the Austrian desire to improve relations with Romania was ulti- mately the despatch of a personal confidante of the heir to the throne Franz Ferdinand, Count Ottokar Czernin, to the post of envoy in Bucharest. Nevertheless, it should have been clear in 1913 that in the event of war it could be expected at best that Romania remain on the sidelines, neutral.129 Thus, the Triple Alliance was repeatedly reduced to the Dual Alliance and not only because Romania’s conduct was no longer calculable but also because the third alliance partner, Italy, was sidelined or bypassed by Germany and Austria-Hungary. The alliance was thus repeatedly, and above all during decisive moments such as 1913 and then 1914, reduced to the status of the Dual Alliance of 1879. In view of the defeat of 1918, the view was increasingly expressed in Germany that the alliance with Austria-Hungary was responsible for the German Empire taking out of ‘blind loyalty’ the step to go to war and thus being dragged into the abyss. It was argued that Kaiser Wilhelm I had resisted the Dual Alliance and Bismarck’s sign- ing of the treaty was blamed.130 Still, this argumentation is not persuasive. Not onlyr Bismarck but also for his successors, the maintenance and modest strengthening of Austria-Hungary weighed more heavily than all other arguments. Furthermore, in this way provision was made against a potential agreement between Austria-Hungary and Russia. And ultimately the conclusion of an alliance 35 years before its collapse is not to be blamed on those who formed the alliance but rather on those who extended it  – if blame can be assigned at all. Also in the case of Italy the words applied : a country is either allied with Italy or it drifts into the camp of its opponents. Other states had also formed alliances together and were competing for partners. In this context, above all the alliance between France and Great Britain, the Entente Cordiale signed in 1904, should be mentioned. The Entente, to which it was then abbreviated, arose from an immediate danger of war, as Britain and the French were only at the last moment able to agree on the division of Africa and thus one of the final chapters in the history of colonial imperialism. The subsequent understanding had not only Africa as an objective,