CHAPTER L
ITALY'S RELATIONS WITH THE WARRING POWERS
After nearly ten months of kaleidoscopic changes in the diplomatic situation, which kept the outside world constantly uncertain as to her ultimate determination, Italy declared war upon Austria May 23, 1915. The bare official explanation of these negotiations gave the impression of selfish bargaining, and a broad survey of conditions on the Italian peninsula before and during the first months of the war is necessary to a proper understanding of the causes that led Italy to take sides with Great Britain, France, and Russia.
Behind these long diplomatic exchanges, their foundation rather than the result of them, lay Italy's national aspirations and a gradual crystallization of public sentiment. Officially, Italy went to war with Austria over an alleged violation of the Triple Alliance; but to most Italians the hope of the war meant the return to the Italian flag of Italians living south of the Austrian Alps, realignment of their northern and eastern frontier on better national and military principles, the possession of certain territory on the eastern shore of the Adriatic as would secure her harborless eastern coast from hostile attack, a reduction of Austrian control over Trieste, and the repatriation of thousands of Italians living in the "unredeemed" portions of southern Austria, which despite many years of Austrian domination was essentially Italian in traditions, customs, language, and loyalty.
Negotiations were prolonged, also, by the fact that at the outbreak of the war Italy was, in a military sense, quite unprepared to engage in a desperate struggle. When Italian Alpine troops finally moved out and took possession of Austrian mountain outposts, the army had undergone regeneration. In both men and munitions Italy was equipped to play a part in the war worthy of a first-class power, and befitting her wide ambitions.
Although Italy was allied with the Central Powers, her peculiar situation dictated a national policy of cordial relations with all Europe. Geographically, she forms a unified mass with Germany and Austria, but the barrier of the Alps across her northern frontier diverts her interests from the north to the south. She is essentially a Mediterranean power, the one great nation on the inland sea with a long coast line and a number of ports. Her hope of the future lay along the Mediterranean shore, but her national unity was gained almost too late to enable her to realize the aspiration of African colonies. It was the disappointment of obtaining possessions in Tunis by the establishment of French control there in 1881 that found expression in the Triple Alliance. Her antagonism against Austria and the Hapsburgs was still unmitigated, but as a practical matter of statesmanship she had to choose between two antagonists—Austria opposing her on the Adriatic, and France on the Mediterranean. Since Africa presented the larger field for expansion, she enlisted the aid of Austria and Germany against France. At the same time she became friendly with England, and largely through this understanding gained her hold upon Tripoli. Cordial relations with France were reestablished in 1903. The sum of her efforts made her a link between the rival groups of European powers. This will explain the peculiar obligations of neutrality incumbent upon the nation when the Triple Entente went to war with her associates in the Triple Alliance.
Alliance with Germany and Austria was a necessity of statesmanship and diplomacy; but at no time was it generally popular with the mass of Italian population. It gave no support to Italian aims in the Mediterranean; it failed to hold the balance between Italy and Austria in the Balkans; it seemed to promise nothing for the future, except, perhaps, immunity from Austrian attack. In fact, it is doubtful whether the alliance would have been renewed in 1912 but for an unexpected outbreak of resentment against France due to a clash over rival interests in northern Africa and increasing suspicion of French action in Tunis. At the same time Italy took offense at the attitude of France toward her position in the war with Turkey, which resulted in the Italian occupation of Tripoli.
| NORTHERN ITALY, SHOWING THE WHOLE ITALIAN-AUSTRIAN FRONTIER AND THE PART OF AUSTRIA DEMANDED BY ITALY |
This better understanding between Italy and her allies soon was disturbed by their attitude toward Serbia, resulting from the successes of that country and Greece in the Balkan wars. For the sake of maintaining the equilibrium between Italy and Austria, the former sympathized with Serbia's aspirations for a port on the Adriatic. In August, 1913—this incident was not revealed until the Premier of Italy told it to the Chamber of Deputies on December 5, 1914—Austria proposed that Italy should consent to an Austrian attack on Serbia. Italy refused to countenance any such action. Revelations made after the beginning of the Great War showed that during the twenty months that elapsed between the renewal of the Triple Alliance and the outbreak of the war, Italy was constantly engaged in combating the policy of Austria-Hungary toward Serbia and striving to maintain the balance of power in the Balkans. The notes exchanged in this period emphasized particularly Articles III, IV, and VII of the Alliance, and since these portions of the treaty were the basis of subsequent negotiations leading up to the final severance of Italo-Austrian relations, their text may be set down here:
"III. In case one or two of the high contracting parties, without direct provocation on their part, should be attacked by one or more of the great powers not signatory of the present treaty, and should become involved in a war with them, the casus fœderis would arise simultaneously for all the high contracting parties.
"IV. In case a great power not a signatory of the present treaty should threaten the state security of one of the high contracting parties, and in case the threatened party should thereby be compelled to declare war against that great power, the two other contracting parties engage themselves to maintain benevolent neutrality toward their ally. Each of them reserves its right, in this case, to take part in the war if it thinks fit, in order to make common cause with its ally.
"VII. Austria-Hungary and Italy, who have solely in view the maintenance, as far as possible, of the territorial status quo in the East, engage themselves to use their influence to prevent all territorial changes which might be disadvantageous to the one or the other of the powers signatory of the present treaty. To this end they will give reciprocally all information calculated to enlighten each other concerning their own intentions and those of other powers. Should, however, the case arise that, in the course of events, the maintenance of the status quo in the territory of the Balkans or of the Ottoman coasts and islands in the Adriatic or the Ægean Sea become impossible, and that, either in consequence of the action of a third power or for any other reason, Austria-Hungary or Italy should be obliged to change the status quo for their part by a temporary or permanent occupation, such occupation would only take place after previous agreement between the two powers which would have to be based upon the principle of a reciprocal compensation for all territorial or other advantages that either of them might acquire over and above the existing status quo, and would have to satisfy the interests and rightful claims of both parties."
When Austria-Hungary sent her ultimatum to Serbia in July, 1914, Italy had lost no time in making her position clear. Premier Salandra and the Marquis di San Giuliano, the Italian Foreign Minister, conferred with Herr von Flotow, German Ambassador at Rome, on July 5, and dispatched the following memorandum to the Duke d'Avarna, the Italian Ambassador at Vienna:
"Salandra and I called the special attention of the ambassador to the fact that Austria had no right, according to the spirit of the Triple Alliance Treaty, to make such a move as she has made at Belgrade without previous agreement with her allies. Austria, in fact, from the tone in which the note is conceived, and from the demands she makes—demands which are of little effect against the pan-Serb danger, but are profoundly offensive to Serbia and indirectly to Russia—has shown clearly that she wishes to provoke a war. We therefore told Flotow that, in consideration of Austria's method of procedure, and of the defensive and conservative nature of the Triple Alliance, Italy is under no obligation to help Austria if as a result of this move of hers she should find herself at war with Russia. For in this case any European war whatever will be consequent upon an act of aggression and provocation on the part of Austria."
When Austria failed to yield to this suggestion and declared war on Serbia, Italy, on July 27 and 28, 1914, had notified Austria and Germany that if she did not receive compensation for Austria's disturbance of the Balkan equilibrium, "the Triple Alliance would be irreparably broken."
While the Italian statesmen declare that they had made their position at the opening of the war perfectly clear to Germany and Austria, the world at large lacked knowledge of these negotiations upon which to base satisfactory judgment of Italy's action—or lack of action—at this time. Italy was in no position to go further than this. The unsettled state of political and popular opinion and her lack of equipment for war forced her to wait; but while she temporized she made ready. In reality, the Italian diplomats maintained that they took a definite position upon their charge that Austria had violated the terms of the Triple Alliance, and that from this stand they never receded. Negotiations with the other members of the alliance received a check, also, through the death of San Giuliano on October 16, 1914. On his deathbed the foreign minister declared his sole regret was that he had not lived to see the day of Italy's entrance into complete national unity.
CHAPTER LI
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CENTRAL POWERS
During the fall and winter of 1914, the Italians had seemed about equally divided in favor of intervention and neutrality. While a large majority of the common people clamored for war, the neutralists probably included the larger proportion of influential citizens. Among the latter were the extreme clericals, who distrusted France and Russia on religious grounds, aristocrats who viewed Germany as a bulwark against socialism; bankers with German connections, and a great body of the middle class who dreaded a war that would interfere with their comfort and prosperity. A genuine admiration for Germany's military prowess, exemplified in the successive victories of 1914, offset to a large extent traditional antipathy to Austria. Nevertheless, interventionist sentiment steadily gained, and Germany, recognizing the trend, organized a determined effort to keep Italy on the side of the alliance. German agents invaded Italy and conducted a campaign of propaganda through the neutralist newspapers and through more secret labors among various organizations influential in their control of public sentiment.
This German campaign reached its climax in December with the arrival at Rome of Prince von Bülow, one of the most skillful diplomats at the call of the German Foreign Office. Von Bülow's capabilities were particularly adapted to a task of this kind among a people that set store upon the niceties of international relations. As an aristocrat and a politician, he ranked among the first of the empire. He had been foreign minister and later imperial chancellor. But his chief qualification for the work was that, before returning to Berlin for greater honors, he had been ambassador at Rome. He had married a Sicilian lady, and was accustomed to spend part of each year in Rome and on his wife's Sicilian estates. The prince was a finished courtier and a charming host. At this juncture his house in Rome became a center of neutralists, and Von Bülow began overtures to Baron Sonnino, the new Italian Foreign Minister, to discover what territorial concessions the Italian Government would demand as recompense for the action of Austria and as the price of adherence to the alliance.
It is remarkable that, throughout the critical period pending Italy's decision, Italian statesmen negotiated mainly with German and not Austrian diplomats. Although the Italians believed that Germany had dictated Austria's war policy, in the end it developed that the kaiser and his ministers were unable to control Austria to the full extent that they considered desirable in the matter of yielding to the Italian demands. The purpose of Prince von Bülow was to find out the minimum terms acceptable to Italy, and meanwhile, by making small concessions, create the impression that Italy could gain without firing a shot all that she could hope for through successful war. In fact, the Teutonic agents did bring against the Italian Cabinet the accusation that they were not acting for the best interests of their country, and were determined to fight regardless of proffered concessions. This charge was denied by the Italian premier in a speech wherein he asserted that the offers of Germany were not in good faith.
Germany asked if the Italian claims would be satisfied by the cession of Trentino. To this Baron Sonnino replied that he "did not consider that Italian popular sentiment would be content with the Trentino alone." A stable condition of accord between Austria and Italy, he said, could be effected only by satisfaction of the old Irredentist formula, "Trent and Trieste." Von Bülow answered that Austria certainly would prefer war to the surrender of Trieste. Here the negotiations stuck fast, the Italian ministry declining to define their demands any further until Austria agreed to the cession of Italian territories actually in the possession of the Hapsburg monarchy.
On February 12, 1915, Sonnino addressed a solemn warning to Austria-Hungary. He declared that any military action undertaken by that monarchy in the Balkans against either Serbia or Montenegro, without previous arrangement with Italy, would be considered an open infringement of Article VII of the Triple Alliance. Disregard of this declaration, he added, would lead to grave consequences for which the Italian Government henceforth declined all responsibility.
Five days later, February 17, 1915, he repeated the warning. "It is necessary," he said, "to state very clearly that any other procedure on the part of the Austro-Hungarian Government could only be interpreted by us as an open violation of the terms of the treaty, and as clear evidence of its intention to resume its liberty of action; in which case we should have to regard ourselves as being fully justified in resuming our own liberty of action for the safeguarding of our interests."
At this time there were rumors of a fresh attack on Serbia by both Austria and Germany, and there is little doubt that the Serbs for the time being were saved by Italy's firm stand. Germany redoubled her efforts at Vienna. Baron Burian, who had recently succeeded Count Berchtold as Foreign Secretary of the Dual Kingdom, had adopted a much more intransigent position than his predecessor. He clung to the contention that it was impossible to settle the question of compensation for Austria's invasion of Serbia until it had become clear how that enterprise would result. Military action, he argued, could not afford to wait upon diplomatic discussion.
Early in March, 1915, it looked for a time as if the Central Powers and their ally would find a satisfactory way out of the tangle. On March 9, 1915, Baron Burian accepted the principle that compensation to Italy must be made from Austrian territory. Italy demanded that negotiations begin at once, and that they should be between Italy and Austria without German interference. Prince von Bülow, still acting for his country, protested, but finally, on March 20, 1915, notified Baron Sonnino that he had been authorized to guarantee in the name of Germany the execution of any agreement which Italy and Austria might conclude.
As announced by the German imperial chancellor, the concessions Austria was willing to make were as follows:
Cession to Italy of that part of Tyrol and the western bank of the Isonzo inhabited by Italians, and of the town of Gradisca.
Trieste to be made an imperial free city, receiving an administration insuring an Italian character to the city, and to have an Italian university.
Recognition of Italian sovereignty over Avlona and the sphere of interests belonging thereto.
Austria-Hungary to declare her political disinterestedness regarding Albania.
National interests of Italian nationals in Austria-Hungary to be particularly respected.
Austria-Hungary to grant amnesty to political or military criminals who were natives of the ceded territories.
The further wishes of Italy regarding general questions to be assured of every consideration.
Austria-Hungary, after the conclusion of the agreement, to give a solemn declaration concerning the concessions.
Appointment of mixed committees for the regulation of details of the concessions.
After the conclusion of the agreement Austro-Hungarian soldiers, natives of the occupied territories, should not further participate in the war.
At last Germany, weighed down by the burden of war and anxious to keep Italy neutral, appeared to believe that the difficulty had been settled. But Baron Sonnino's reply proved disappointing. He found the proposals too vague. They did not settle the Irredentist problem; above all they made no appreciable improvement in Italy's military frontier; finally, they did not offer adequate compensation for the freedom of action Austria would enjoy in the Balkans. "A strip of territory in the Trentino," he concluded, would not satisfy any of Italy's requirements.
On April 2, 1915, Austria, spurred on by Germany, endeavored to meet the Italian objections by offering more specific concessions. She expressed willingness to cede the districts of Trento, Roveredo, Riva, Tione (except Madonna di Campiglio and the neighborhood), and Borgo. This readjustment would give Italy a frontier cutting the valley of the Adige just north of Lavis. These districts Baron Burian considered far more than a "strip of territory," and he hoped Italy would be satisfied.
But Italy was far from satisfied, and six days later, in response to an invitation for counterproposals, Baron Sonnino drafted the following demands:
I. The Trentino, with the boundaries fixed for the Kingdom of Italy in 1811.
II. A new eastern frontier, to include Gradisca and Gorizia.
III. Trieste and its neighborhood, including Nabresina and the judicial districts of Capo d'Istria and Pirano, to be formed into an autonomous state with complete independence from Austro-Hungarian rule. Trieste to be a free port.
IV. The cession by Austria-Hungary of the Curzolari Islands off the coast of Dalmatia.
V. The immediate occupation by Italy of the ceded territories and the immediate evacuation by Austria-Hungary of Trieste and the neighborhood.
VI. The recognition by Austria-Hungary of Italian sovereignty over Valona and district.
VII. The renunciation by Austria-Hungary of any claims in Albania.
VIII. A complete amnesty for all political or military prisoners belonging to the territories mentioned in I to IV.
The next three articles provided:
IX. That Italy should pay to Austria-Hungary as indemnification for the loss of government property, as a share of the public debt, and against all money claims, the sum of 200,000,000 lire.
X. That Italy should pledge herself to maintain neutrality throughout the war, this pledge applying to both Germany and Austria-Hungary.
XI. That Italy should renounce any further claims under Article VII of the Triple Alliance for the whole duration of the war, and that Austria-Hungary should renounce any claim to compensation for Italy's occupation of the Dodecannesus.
These demands were pressed by Italy in the face of disquieting rumors that Austria-Hungary was on the point of concluding a separate peace with Russia, which would leave her free to devote her whole attention to Italy and Serbia if the former refused to make terms. They were rejected by Austria, April 16, with a few unimportant exceptions: Article VIII was accepted. As regards Article IX, Baron Burian asserted that the amount offered was totally insufficient, but suggested that the question of pecuniary indemnity be referred to The Hague. He held that the pledge of neutrality should be extended to Turkey as well as to Germany and Austria, and asked for the insertion of an extra clause in Article XI, providing that Italy's renunciation of further claims under Article VII of the Triple Alliance should cover all such advantages, territorial and otherwise, as Austria might gain from the treaty of peace which should terminate the war. The only cardinal point on which Austria offered concessions was in regard to the proposed Trentino frontier. This she agreed might follow a course more advantageous for Italy than that suggested in Austria's former proposals.
Baron Sonnino's reply was sent from Rome on April 21, 1915. It declared that these additional concessions failed to "repair the chief inconveniences of the present situation, either from the linguistic and ethnological or the military point of view." Austria, he pointed out, seemed determined to maintain positions on the frontier that were a perpetual threat to Italy. There were three more conversations between Baron Burian and the Italian Ambassador at Vienna before negotiations were broken off, and on April 29, 1915, the Italian Ambassador telegraphed to Rome that Austria virtually negatived all the Italian demands, especially those contained in the first five articles. The real break, which made war inevitable, came on May 3 when Baron Sonnino sent to Vienna a formal denunciation of the Italo-Austrian alliance.
It must be remembered that behind the text of these formal proposals and counterproposals lay a belief in the minds of many Italians that Austria made even the slight concessions she granted unwillingly and under pressure from Germany, and that if the war resulted successfully for the Central Powers, Austria would immediately begin to scheme for a restoration of her old frontiers.
Since it is an axiom of diplomatic bargaining that each side asks more than it expects to receive, there is no doubt that Italy would have been willing to modify her demands if her statesmen and people had been sure that the concessions obtained from Austria under these circumstances would not have been disturbed in the event of a Teutonic victory.