• Source: Ultimatum of July 23, 1914

      • The ultimatum of July 23, 1914, was a diplomatic note the Austro-Hungarian ambassador in Belgrade delivered to the Serbian Minister of Finance, the sole member of the royal government present in the capital that day. The text was drafted with great care by Baron Musulin von Gomirje, a Viennese diplomat. It constituted Austria-Hungary's response to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the thrones of Austria and Hungary, on June 28 of the same year in Sarajevo. This delayed response resulted from an agreement between Austria-Hungary and its principal ally, the German Empire, reached as early as July 7.
      Following a period of more than two weeks during which intense negotiations were conducted within the leadership of the dual monarchy, those in favor of initiating a conflict with the Kingdom of Serbia—deemed responsible for the assassination—secured the agreement of their colleagues, who had previously been reluctant to proceed. Subsequently, a subordinate diplomat, renowned for his proficiency in drafting, was assigned the task of formulating the ultimatum. The text was meticulously constructed to appear untenable, thereby ensuring its rejection by the Serbian government. Delivered to Serbian authorities on July 23, the Austro-Hungarian note compelled the Serbian royal government to issue a response, ultimately dismissed by Austro-Hungarian diplomacy.


      General context




      = The Sarajevo assassination

      =

      On June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the thrones of Austria and Hungary, was assassinated alongside his wife, Sophie Chotek, while attending Austro-Hungarian army maneuvers in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The attack, carried out by Gavrilo Princip, a young Serbian activist, occurred during the couple's visit to Sarajevo, the provincial capital of annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina. Princip's actions were organized by Bosnian Serbs, who had been Austro-Hungarian subjects since 1909. The assassination marked the culmination of a decade of attacks against key Austro-Hungarian officials in the southern Slavic territories of the dual monarchy.
      The repercussions of this event extended beyond the moral implications it held across Europe, prompting a comprehensive investigation by the Austro-Hungarian police force. The preliminary findings of this investigation swiftly identified the involvement of Serbs hailing from the Kingdom of Serbia.


      = Austro-Hungarian suspicions

      =
      Since there was no definitive proof, the Austro-Hungarian authorities were inclined to implicate Serbian officials. The preliminary findings of the investigation, obtained through prompt inquiries, indicated the existence of a complex scheme with extensive connections in both Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia. Additionally, the investigation brought to light the involvement of a clandestine Serbian organization, the Black Hand, which was headed by Dragutin Dimitrijević, the chief of Serbian military intelligence. Austro-Hungarian police suspected that the terrorists had benefited from the complicity of Serbian military personnel and border guards during both the preparation of the attack and the subsequent exfiltration of accomplices who remained at large following the police investigation. In Serbia, Austrian diplomats also observed a discrepancy between official expressions of condolence and the public's reaction.
      Furthermore, as early as 1914, the political leaders of the Dual Monarchy, influenced by reports from their intelligence services, anticipated a significant crisis in the Balkan Peninsula. Austro-Hungarian intelligence sources indicated that not only had Tsar Nicholas II expressed support for initiating a conflict with the Dual Monarchy, but that the political and diplomatic crisis anticipated earlier in the year was expected to erupt before the year's end. This assessment was corroborated by numerous intelligence agents stationed in Bosnia-Herzegovina during their investigation following the assassination of the imperial and royal crown prince.
      Subsequently, Austria-Hungary had been progressively marginalized from the Balkans by Russia since the Balkan Wars. Bulgaria, which had been an ally of the Dual Monarchy, had suffered a decisive defeat during the Second Balkan War.


      = Serbia, the "Piedmont of the South Slavs"

      =
      Since its declaration of independence in 1878, the Kingdom of Serbia has constituted a primary concern of the foreign policy of the Dual Monarchy.
      While the Obrenović dynasty, which ruled until 1903, was dependent on Austria-Hungary for its continued existence, the violent dynastic change in 1903 resulted in the dissolution of this dependency. The Obrenović dynasty had relied on Austria-Hungary for political and economic support, aligning the small kingdom with its northern neighbor. The new monarch, Peter I, with the support of Serbian radicals, initiated a shift in alliances toward France. The victories of Serbia in the First and Second Balkan Wars of 1913 served to heighten nationalist pride in Belgrade and to demonstrate the consequences of Romania, a traditional ally of the Dual Monarchy, repositioning itself against Bulgaria. To counter Serbia, a mid-sized but rapidly growing power that was closely tied to Russia, the Austro-Hungarians and Germans sought to force it back into strict dependency on the Central Powers.
      Internal tensions within the Austro-Hungarian Empire also intensified. Beginning in 1905, representatives of South Slavic peoples in the Empire's legislative assemblies formed joint parliamentary groups in Dalmatia and Croatia, thereby securing a majority in the Sabor of Zagreb by 1908.
      In the early months of 1914, Serbia was beset by a significant political crisis. Crown Prince Alexander, who had been appointed regent due to his father's weakened state, engaged in a series of disputes with certain military factions, while Prime Minister Nikola Pašić effectively held executive power. The election campaign for the parliamentary elections of August 14, 1914, in which Pašić was deeply involved, served to further exacerbate these internal divisions.


      = The position of the central powers in 1914

      =
      By 1914, the German Empire was no longer in a position to retain smaller Balkan states like Romania, Bulgaria, and Greece within its alliance. The Balkan Wars had exacted a significant toll on these kingdoms, and their governments were seeking financial support to reinforce their claims to territories that had been annexed. However, neither Germany nor Austria-Hungary demonstrated the capacity to provide more than token commitments.
      German influence in the Ottoman Empire also faced threats, acknowledged by Kaiser Wilhelm II and his close advisors. By the autumn of 1913, the Ottoman government, despite its pro-German stance, could no longer secure funding from German banks, which were themselves struggling. It turned instead to markets in London and Paris. On May 29, 1914, Karl Helfferich, a representative of Deutsche Bank, sent an alarming memorandum to Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg, highlighting the Reich's weakening position in the Ottoman Empire. Although short-term financial assistance was arranged in June, German bankers deemed this insufficient to address future demands from their allies.
      By the advent of spring in 1914, the Dual Monarchy remained Germany's sole reliable ally, in stark contrast to the Balkan states, which were increasingly estranged from their erstwhile allies. Leopold Berchtold, the foreign minister of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, assigned a trusted aide, Franz Matscheko, the task of preparing a report on the developments in the Balkans since the Balkan Wars. The preliminary report, delivered on June 23, 1914, assessed the consequences of these developments, advised against the proposed alliance with Romania, advocated for a more aggressive stance against Serbia, and proposed focusing diplomatic efforts on Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire to ally against Belgrade.


      July 7 – July 23, 1914: Intense preparations


      In the wake of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Austro-Hungarian leaders devised a meticulously orchestrated response in collaboration with the German Reich, aimed at Serbia.


      = The German "blank check"

      =

      Despite differing perspectives among Austrians and Hungarians, the leaders of the Austro-Hungarian Empire concurred on the importance of seeking counsel from Germany.
      Austro-Hungarian diplomats were promptly apprised of Kaiser Wilhelm II's stance. On July 2, Foreign Minister Leopold Berchtold convened with the German ambassador in Vienna, who counseled prudence and cautioned against hastily ascribing culpability to the Serbian government.
      On July 5, Count Hoyos, in possession of a memorandum that was highly critical of Serbia and a handwritten letter from Franz Joseph to Wilhelm II, undertook an official journey to Berlin to secure the support of the German government for the measures that the Austro-Hungarian Empire planned to take against Serbia. On the preceding day, Viennese diplomats had been given an informal briefing on Germany's position. On July 4, Kaiser Wilhelm II conveyed his personal support for his ally in a statement that reiterated positions he had taken the previous autumn. These included his willingness to provide backing to the Dual Monarchy should it take decisive action against Serbia. This support was formally confirmed to the Austro-Hungarian envoy on July 6, 1914.
      Wilhelm II had carefully prepared his stance in advance. In the days following the assassination, he held extensive consultations with his ministers and advisors to shape Germany's policy on the Austro-Serbian crisis. Reassured by their ally's backing, Austro-Hungarian leaders began implementing measures in response to the crown prince's assassination. German officials also emphasized the importance of acting swiftly to capitalize on the outrage sparked by the attack.
      Ultimately, as part of the Reich's policy realignment, Wilhelm II assured Romania regarding its neutrality in the context of an Austro-Serbian conflict. Bulgaria, the Central Powers' newly-forged ally, had previously threatened intervention on Romania's southern flank, thereby further ensuring that Romania would maintain its neutral stance.
      However, as Fritz Fischer has demonstrated in his historical analysis, the Reich did not limit itself to mere declarations of support or a diplomatic balancing act. To limit the Austro-Serbian conflict, German initiatives sought to engage with Serbia's potential allies through diplomatic and political means. In a statement made on July 21 and 22, before the issuance of the ultimatum, Reich Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg expressed his view that the Austro-Hungarian note to Serbia was "fair and moderate." On July 24, a circular from the German Foreign Ministry instructed Reich ambassadors to underscore the bilateral nature of the Austro-Serbian dispute. Moreover, Germany's ambassador in Vienna, Heinrich Leonard von Tschirschky und Bögendorff, exerted considerable influence over the Austro-Hungarian monarchy through his daily interactions and frequent meetings with key policymakers. He advocated for a robust response as a means of restoring the monarchy's waning prestige. It was assumed by officials from both the Reich and Austria-Hungary that a rapid offensive, limited to the capture of Belgrade and its surroundings, would present the Triple Entente with a fait accompli.


      = The different centers of power in Austria-Hungary (July 7–23)

      =

      During the crisis, various institutions within the Dual Monarchy exerted, at times, contradictory pressures on Austro-Hungarian foreign policy. The common Minister of War, Alexander von Krobatin; Foreign Minister Leopold Berchtold; and Chief of the General Staff Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf advocated for prompt military action. However, they encountered resistance from Hungarian Prime Minister István Tisza, who was disinclined to portray the monarchy as the aggressor.
      Emperor Franz Joseph promptly endorsed a resolute policy towards Serbia. Despite his disinclination towards his nephew, Franz Ferdinand, the Emperor was resolved to safeguard the interests of his dynasty and the integrity of his dominions from any external encroachment. The emperor was supported in this endeavor by several individuals, including Alexander Hoyos, Janos Forgach, Alexander von Musulin, and Franz von Matscheko, as well as the Chief of Staff Conrad von Hötzendorf and the Foreign Minister Berchtold. Collectively, these figures exerted considerable influence, enabling the emperor to pursue a confrontational policy towards Serbia. Nevertheless, he sought to demonstrate the involvement of Serbian intelligence in the assassination, to gain Berlin's support before any Austro-Hungarian initiative, and to persuade Tisza to approve military action against the Kingdom of Belgrade.
      Tisza was concerned about the potential response of the minority and marginalized Slavic populations in Hungary and was opposed to military action against Serbia. This stance placed him at odds with other decision-makers in the Dual Monarchy. From the outset of the crisis, he encountered resistance from the military, particularly from Conrad, who advocated a swift assault on Belgrade without an ultimatum or declaration of war. Tisza persisted in his opposition to military action against Serbia throughout the Austro-Hungarian Council of Ministers on July 7 and the subsequent days, until July 14. In a move to reinforce his stance, Tisza invoked the memorandum he had drafted on June 30, outlining his position on the matter. On July 7, he put forth an alternative diplomatic solution, aiming to bolster alliances with Bulgaria and Romania. This strategy sought to isolate Belgrade and compel Serbian leaders to concede to Austro-Hungarian demands. After protracted deliberations, his consent was ultimately obtained. On July 14, Germany's ambassador in Vienna, Heinrich von Tschirschky, conveyed to Berlin that Tisza had acquiesced to the proposal of conveying a missive to the Serbian government.

      On July 19, during a joint council of ministers in Vienna, Tisza's remaining objections were overcome after consulting with his close associate, Stephan Burián von Rajecz. Furthermore, Conrad guaranteed him—contrary to Berchtold's concerns—that the monarchy would not emerge from the conflict without territorial gains and that Hungarian Transylvania would be safeguarded against potential Romanian offensives. To address Tisza's concerns, a compromise was reached. This involved Bulgaria, an ally of the Dual Monarchy, annexing Serbian territories. However, other issues that Tisza had raised, including Romania's likely demands for compensation, Bulgaria's future policies as an expanded state, replacing the Karageorgevic dynasty, the possibility of Russian intervention, and its military consequences, remained unresolved.
      Moreover, in response to the assertive actions of German diplomats and the disclosure of confidential information by the German Secretary of State, Austro-Hungarian officials ceased sharing their intentions and planned measures with German leaders until July 22, the day before the ultimatum was delivered to Serbia.
      During this period, Austro-Hungarian military officials undertook preparations for the impending conflict, effecting a transition in the role of the intelligence services. The network of Austro-Hungarian agents was transformed from a passive information-gathering apparatus to one engaged in active espionage, censorship of postal, telephone, and telegraph communications, and counterintelligence operations directed against adversarial intelligence services.


      = The kingdom of Serbia in the aftermath of the assassination

      =

      In the hours following the assassination, officials of the Dual Monarchy, with the support of information provided by the imperial and royal ambassador in Belgrade, directed their attention to the Serbian capital. The preliminary interrogations of suspects appeared to substantiate the Austro-Hungarian suspicions. On July 1, Danilo Ilić, an arrested conspirator during police raids on Bosnian-Herzegovinian Serbian nationalist circles, revealed the plot's extensive connections. However, establishing connections to the Kingdom of Serbia proved challenging, partly due to the behavior of prisoners implicated by Ilić.
      This conclusion is further supported by the observations of Austro-Hungarian diplomats regarding the attitudes of the population within the kingdom. Despite the government in Belgrade's declaration of an official mourning period of eight weeks, which was subsequently reduced to eight days, the population expressed its vehement discontent, and the nationalist press launched impassioned attacks against Austria-Hungary. This occurred despite the appeals of Serbian diplomats stationed in other European countries and the disapproval of the Dual Monarchy. In response, the Serbian government invoked its constitution, which prohibited restrictions on press freedom, as justification for its inaction. Moreover, Austro-Hungarian diplomatic requests for an investigation into the connections of the conspiracy within Serbia yielded no tangible results, largely due to the lack of cooperation from Serbian investigators.
      Furthermore, the electoral context in Serbia did not motivate the government to challenge the most radical nationalists. Nevertheless, as early as June 29, Prime Minister Nikola Pašić articulated in a public address that the Kingdom of Belgrade would possess the capacity to defend itself in the event of an Austro-Hungarian assault.
      As outlined by Pašić, the Serbian response unfolded in three distinct phases. These phases reflect a cautious balancing act on the part of the government, which demonstrated a consistent willingness to cooperate with the Dual Monarchy's police throughout the crisis. The initial phase, spanning from June 28 to July 15, was characterized by a cautious and measured approach. The second phase commenced on July 15, following Hungary's decision to adopt a policy of retaliation against Serbia, which persisted until the issuance of the ultimatum. The third phase commenced with the ultimatum's delivery, influencing Serbia's response to the evolving crisis.


      A deliberate Austro-Hungarian response


      As early as July 6, Austria-Hungary commenced preparations for its response to the assassination of the Habsburg heir apparent. This response was conveyed to the Serbian government in a note delivered on the afternoon of July 23. The drafting process involved consultations among key Austro-Hungarian actors, with particular attention paid to the timing of its delivery.


      = Planning the note

      =
      On July 8, Baron Musulin von Gomirje, a proficient Austro-Hungarian diplomat renowned for his literary proficiency and advocacy for crisis resolution through decisive action, was entrusted with the drafting process. The Vienna ministry exercised meticulous supervision over the drafting process, aiming for a text that Serbia might accept, except Point 6, which encroached upon Serbian sovereignty.
      Upon completion on July 19, the draft was presented to Emperor Franz Joseph on July 20 and received his approval the following morning.


      = Structure of the ultimatum

      =
      The "July 23 Ultimatum" comprised three elements: a diplomatic note, a ten-point ultimatum, and a commentary on the circumstances and conditions of the document's delivery.
      The introductory note delineated the grievances of the Dual Monarchy against Serbia, citing commitments Serbia had made in 1909 to maintain amicable relations with its neighbors. The Austro-Hungarian government explicitly accused Belgrade not of directly supporting the assassination of the heir but of "tolerating" the activities of the conspirators.
      Subsequently, the ultimatum was presented, comprising ten points. The text then proceeded to address the issue of anti-Austrian propaganda. Three points demanded the cessation of anti-Austrian propaganda within Serbian territory, including the prohibition of nationalist press and Yugoslav propaganda. About the matter of judicial actions, Four additional points called for the initiation of legal proceedings against those responsible for the assassination and the apprehension of any Serbian officials who may have been complicit in the plot. Police Cooperation: Points 5 and 6 underscored the importance of Serbian police collaboration with Austro-Hungarian authorities in identifying the perpetrators and permitted Austro-Hungarian officials to operate within Serbian territory.
      From the text, it becomes evident that Austro-Hungarian diplomats, at the behest of military leaders and key officials of the Dual Monarchy, sought to assert increasing control over their smaller neighbor. Their objective was to revert to the situation before 1903, effectively transforming the Kingdom of Serbia into a satellite of Austria-Hungary.
      Ultimately, the note was accompanied by a commentary intended for the Serbian government, the purpose of which was to elucidate the context in which the Austro-Hungarians had prepared the ultimatum.


      = Full Text

      =
      The following is the Austro-Hungarian note of July 23, 1914, translated by diplomat and writer Gabriel Hanotaux in his Histoire illustrée de la guerre de 1914, Volume 2:


      Note


      Serbia acknowledges that it has not been deprived of its rights by the fait accompli established in Bosnia-Herzegovina and that it will comply with whatever decisions the Powers make regarding Article XXV of the Treaty of Berlin. Following the advice of the Great Powers, Serbia pledges to abandon its protest and opposition regarding the annexation since last autumn and further undertakes to change its current policy toward Austria-Hungary to live henceforth on terms of good neighborliness with the latter.However, the events of recent years, and particularly the tragic events of June 28, have demonstrated the existence in Serbia of a subversive movement whose aim is to detach certain parts of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. This movement, which has grown under the eyes of the Serbian government, has manifested beyond Serbian borders through acts of terrorism, a series of attacks, and murders.The Royal Serbian Government, far from fulfilling the formal commitments contained in its declaration of March 31, 1909, has done nothing to suppress this movement. It has tolerated the criminal activities of various associations and affiliations directed against the Monarchy, the unrestrained rhetoric of the press, the glorification of attackers, the participation of officers and officials in subversive acts, unhealthy propaganda in public education, and finally, all manifestations likely to incite the Serbian population to hatred of the Monarchy and contempt for its institutions.This culpable tolerance of the Royal Serbian Government persisted until the events of June 28 exposed to the world the disastrous consequences.Testimonies and confessions from those responsible for the June 28 crime reveal that the Sarajevo assassination was plotted in Belgrade, that the weapons and explosives used were supplied by Serbian officers and officials associated with the "Narodna Odbrana," and that the crossing into Bosnia by the criminals and their arms was organized and carried out by Serbian border officials.The results of the investigation compelled the Imperial and Royal Government to abandon the policy of patient forbearance it had observed for years regarding the activities concentrated in Belgrade and propagated from there onto the Monarchy's territory. On the contrary, these results impose the duty of putting an end to operations that pose a perpetual threat to the Monarchy's stability.To achieve this objective, the Imperial and Royal Government finds itself obliged to request from the Serbian Government an official declaration condemning the propaganda directed against the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy—namely, all efforts ultimately aiming to detach parts of the Monarchy—and committing to suppress this criminal and terrorist propaganda by all available means.To lend solemnity to this commitment, the Royal Serbian Government will publish the following statement on the front page of its Official Gazette on July 13/26:The Royal Serbian Government condemns the propaganda directed against Austria-Hungary—namely, all movements ultimately aiming to detach territories belonging to the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. It sincerely regrets the harmful consequences of these criminal acts.The Royal Government regrets that Serbian officers and officials participated in the aforementioned propaganda, thereby compromising the good-neighborly relations to which the Royal Government had solemnly pledged itself in its declaration of March 31, 1909.The Royal Government, which disapproves and repudiates all ideas or attempts to interfere in the affairs of the inhabitants of any part of Austria-Hungary, considers it its duty to formally warn officers, officials, and the population of the kingdom that, henceforth, it will act with the utmost severity against those guilty of such acts and will spare no effort to prevent and suppress them."This statement will be simultaneously communicated to the Royal Army in an order of the day from His Majesty the King and published in the Army’s Official Bulletin.


      Ultimatum


      Furthermore, the Royal Serbian Government pledges to:1. Suppress any publication inciting hatred or contempt of the Monarchy and any works promoting actions against its territorial integrity.2. Dissolve the "Narodna Odbrana" society and confiscate its propaganda tools, similarly addressing other organizations in Serbia involved in anti-monarchy activities, ensuring these groups cannot reconstitute themselves under a different name or form.3. Remove from Serbian public education any content—whether in teaching staff or instructional materials—liable to incite propaganda against Austria-Hungary.4. Dismiss from military and civil service all officers and officials guilty of anti-monarchy propaganda, with the names and offenses to be communicated by the Imperial and Royal Governments.5. Permit Austro-Hungarian representatives to collaborate in Serbia in the suppression of the subversive movement targeting the Monarchy’s territorial integrity.6. Initiate judicial proceedings against those implicated in the June 28 conspiracy within Serbian territory, with Austro-Hungarian delegates participating in the investigations.7. Immediately arrest Commandant Vojislav Tankosić and Milan Ciganović, a Serbian state employee implicated by the Sarajevo investigation.8. Prevent Serbian authorities from aiding the illegal trafficking of arms and explosives across the border and dismiss and severely punish officials at the Šabac and Loznica border posts who assisted the assassins of Sarajevo.9. Provide explanations regarding hostile remarks made by Serbian officials, both domestically and abroad, who, despite their official status, expressed hostility toward the Monarchy in interviews following the June 28 attack.10. Notify the Imperial and Royal Government without delay of the execution of these measures.The Imperial and Royal Governments expect the Serbian Government’s response by Saturday, July 25, at 5:00 p.m.A memorandum detailing the results of the Sarajevo investigation concerning officials mentioned in points 7 and 8 is attached to this note.


      Commentary


      The note concludes stating The Imperial and Royal Government invites Your Excellency to convey this note to the appropriate government, along with a detailed commentary:

      On March 31, 1909, the Royal Serbian Government addressed Austria-Hungary with the declaration reproduced above.
      Despite this declaration, Serbia pursued actions that directly undermined Austro-Hungarian stability:

      Immediately after this declaration, Serbia embarked on a policy aimed at fostering subversive ideas among Austro-Hungarian subjects and preparing the separation of Austro-Hungarian territories bordering Serbia. Serbia thus became the hub of criminal agitation.
      In the aftermath of the revolution, a wide range of organizations were established, overtly and covertly, to incite unrest within Austria-Hungary. These groups included influential figures from various sectors, such as “generals, diplomats, state officials, and judges,” reflecting a cross-section of Serbian society.
      The Serbian press played a pivotal role in promoting anti-Austrian sentiment:

      Incitement to hatred and contempt for the neighboring monarchy, as well as calls for attacks on its security and integrity, were commonplace in Serbian press outlets.
      Serbia also deployed agents to spread propaganda and influence the youth in Austro-Hungarian territories, while its politicians, some with violent histories in Macedonia, shifted their focus to supporting anti-Austrian terrorism:

      The conspiratorial spirit of Serbian politicians—a trait that has left a bloody mark on the kingdom's history—has experienced a resurgence since the recent Balkan crisis.
      Despite years of provocation, Austria-Hungary exercised restraint. However, Serbia failed to act against these activities, violating its commitments under the 1909 declaration:

      The Serbian government has not taken any measures whatsoever. Consequently, the Serbian government failed in its duties as outlined in its solemn declaration of March 31, 1909, thereby contradicting the will of Europe and its commitments to Austria-Hungary.
      Austria-Hungary had hoped that its lack of territorial ambitions and support for Serbia’s expansion in 1912 would foster cooperation:

      The Imperial and Royal Government's benevolent stance toward Serbia's political interests was predicated on the assumption that the kingdom would reciprocate with a similar approach.
      However, Serbia continued to tolerate propaganda and actions against Austria-Hungary, leading to the assassination on June 28 of the heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne—a crime “orchestrated in Belgrade.”
      Faced with this reality, Austria-Hungary felt compelled to act decisively to protect its security and territorial integrity:

      The Imperial and Royal Government is confident that this action aligns with the sentiments of all civilized nations, which are opposed to the idea that regicide should become an unpunished weapon in political struggles.
      To substantiate its claims, Austria-Hungary has shared a comprehensive dossier with the French government, detailing Serbia’s role in the assassination. Copies of this communication have also been sent to other signatory powers:

      You are duly authorized to leave a copy of this dispatch with the French Minister of Foreign Affairs.


      = Delivery of the ultimatum

      =
      The Austro-Hungarian government's selected course of action was the result of a meticulous planning process. The Austro-Hungarian note was delivered on Thursday, July 23, at precisely 6 p.m. This was the moment when key French officials were expected to be aboard a ship returning from a visit to Russia. Consequently, the Austro-Hungarian ambassador delivered the note to the Serbian Minister of Finance, who was acting instead of the Prime Minister, at his location in Niš. The timing of this action effectively prevented the French and Russians from consulting with each other until the French delegation returned to Dunkirk, temporarily immobilizing two members of the Entente.
      The timeframe for Serbia's response was also contingent upon the demands of the Austro-Hungarian military. Chief of General Staff Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf took into account the time required for Austro-Hungarian military mobilization and successfully requested that the response deadline be set for 5 p.m. on Saturday, allowing mobilization orders to be issued overnight.
      The note delivered to the Serbian government included the text of the ultimatum and an appendix. The Austro-Hungarian ambassador presented the document to the Serbian minister, who objected to the short deadline, citing the ongoing Serbian electoral campaign. This objection was summarily dismissed.
      From the moment the Austro-Hungarian note was delivered, the Serbian government was obliged to accept its terms within a period of 48 hours.


      International reactions



      The response of the Serbian government was contingent upon the actions of Prime Minister Pašić on July 23 and the position adopted by Russia during the crisis. Initially unavailable due to his engagement in the electoral campaign and subsequent journey to Thessaloniki, the Prime Minister was directed by Regent Alexander to return to Belgrade without delay. In his absence, the Serbian cabinet convened to adopt measures to equip diplomats with arguments to defend the royal government's position.
      However, the little kingdom's response came as no surprise, as the terms of the Austro-Hungarian note had been designed from the outset by the Ballhausplatz designers to be unacceptable to the Belgrade government.


      = Partial text of the Serbian response of July 25, 1914

      =
      The following is a partial translation of the Serbian response of July 25, 1914, as recorded by the diplomat and writer Gabriel Hanotaux in Histoire illustrée de la guerre de 1914 (Illustrated history of the 1914 war), Volume 2:
      The Serbian government’s response to Austro-Hungarian demands sought to address each point comprehensively, blending firm commitments with an adherence to constitutional principles. Serbia began by pledging to introduce legal reforms targeting anti-Austrian sentiments. Specifically, the government agreed:

      to introduce, at the next regular session of the Skupština, a provision into the press law that would impose the severest penalties for inciting hatred and contempt against the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, as well as for any publication whose general tendency is directed against the territorial integrity of Austria-Hungary.
      Additionally, it committed to amending Article 22 of the Constitution to allow for the confiscation of such publications, a measure currently prohibited by constitutional constraints.
      Regarding the dissolution of subversive organizations, Serbia remarked that it had no evidence of wrongdoing by these groups but nonetheless declared:

      The Royal Government will comply with the Imperial and Royal Government's demand by dissolving the Narodna Odbrana Society and any other organizations acting against Austria-Hungary.
      The Serbian government further committed to purging anti-Austrian materials from its public education system. However, it noted that:

      The removal of such material would require the Imperial and Royal Government to supply facts and evidence of such propaganda.
      On the matter of dismissing military personnel implicated in anti-Austro-Hungarian activities, Serbia promised compliance contingent on evidence from Vienna. It stated:

      The Royal Government agrees to dismiss from military service anyone proven by judicial investigation to have engaged in acts against the territorial integrity of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. It awaits the Imperial and Royal Government’s communication of the names and details of such officers and officials to initiate the appropriate proceedings.
      Serbia expressed a willingness to collaborate with Austria-Hungary on investigations but noted its reservations about the scope of the demand. It acknowledged its duty to investigate individuals involved in the June 28 assassination plot and stated:

      The Royal Government considers it its duty to initiate an investigation against all those involved, or potentially involved, in the June 28 plot and who are found on Serbian territory.
      However, it resisted allowing foreign agents to participate in the process, citing constitutional and legal barriers.
      Immediate actions were highlighted, including the arrest of Commander Vojislav Tankosić. Regarding Milan Ciganović, Serbia explained that he had not yet been located and requested Vienna to “provide evidence of guilt collected in the Sarajevo investigation to facilitate further inquiries.”
      Additionally, Serbia committed to “reinforce and expand measures to prevent the illegal trafficking of arms and explosives across the border” and promised to investigate and punish any border officials who neglected their duties, enabling the perpetrators to cross into Austria-Hungary.
      Addressing Austro-Hungary’s concerns over hostile rhetoric, Serbia offered to provide clarifications for statements attributed to its officials, statin:

      These explanations will be given as soon as the specific statements and evidence proving they were made are communicated.
      Finally, Serbia emphasized its preference for a peaceful resolution of any outstanding issues, expressing readiness to refer the matter to international arbitration. It concluded:

      Should the Imperial and Royal Government find this response unsatisfactory, the Royal Serbian Government... remains ready, as always, to seek a peaceful settlement by referring the matter to the Hague Tribunal or the Great Powers involved in the declaration of March 31, 1909.
      Through its response, Serbia sought to balance addressing Austro-Hungarian grievances with safeguarding its sovereignty and legal integrity.


      = Serbian response: Partial compliance with Austro-Hungarian demands

      =
      Influences exerted by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Sazonov resulted in the Serbian response addressing the majority of Austria-Hungary's demands, particularly those that Belgrade could reasonably accept. Concurrently, the Serbian government sought clarification on the arguments presented by Vienna.
      The Serbian note was meticulously calculated, underscoring the alteration in diplomatic strategy towards Austria-Hungary after the resolution of the Bosnian crisis. Its creators underscored the absence of involvement by the Serbian government in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, expressed remorse over the involvement of Bosnian Serbs in the crime, and pledged action against Serbian nationals engaged in anti-Austrian propaganda.
      Nevertheless, Serbia declined to permit Austrian law enforcement officials to operate within its borders. This decision was made following consultations with the Russian chargé d'affaires in Belgrade and subsequent explicit support from the Russian foreign minister. As a result of this refusal, diplomatic relations between the two countries were effectively terminated.
      In practice, Serbia's apparent capitulation was rendered meaningless by the skillful wording of its response, which effectively rejected Austrian demands. This, however, deceived Kaiser Wilhelm II, who declared the day after Serbia's reply that "all grounds for war have disappeared."
      The Serbian response, described by the Austrian note's author, Baron Musulin, as "the most brilliant exercise in diplomatic virtuosity," prompted Austro-Hungarian ambassador Wladimir Giesl von Gieslingen to sever diplomatic ties with Serbia just minutes after receiving the note.


      = The Austro-Serbian breakup

      =
      On the morning of Saturday, July 25, the Serbian cabinet convened to draft the government's response to the Austro-Hungarian note, which had been delivered the previous day and was set to expire that evening. That evening, shortly before 6 p.m., just minutes before the deadline, Serbian Prime Minister Nikola Pašić delivered the response to Wladimir Giesl, the Austro-Hungarian ambassador in Belgrade. Upon receiving the Serbian note, the ambassador promptly reviewed it and informed the Serbian Prime Minister of the severance of diplomatic relations between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Kingdom of Serbia.
      In anticipation of the impending conflict, the Austro-Hungarian ambassador departed Belgrade at 6 p.m. On July 28, Emperor Franz Joseph formally declared war on the Kingdom of Serbia on behalf of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.


      = European reactions: July 23–28

      =

      Immediately following the distribution of the Austro-Hungarian note to Belgrade, European powers initiated discussions despite the constrained timeframe available to Serbia for coordinating with its allies. These consultations, coupled with the inflexible timeline established by the Central Powers, further reinforced French and Russian suspicions of Austro-German collusion in devising a response to the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian heir.
      Russia was the inaugural major power to offer a response. Despite an initially indignant reaction from Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Sazonov, the Russian Council of Ministers, soon joined by their French and British counterparts, proposed requesting an extension of the deadline for Serbia's reply. Concurrently, Russia initiated a partial mobilization of its armed forces, a decision that was publicly disclosed on July 28. In addition, economic countermeasures were implemented, including the repatriation of Russian assets from Germany and Austria-Hungary. These actions provoked the German Empire, whose diplomats were adamant in their assertion to their European counterparts that the Austro-Serbian conflict was a matter confined to the local and bilateral levels. Russia's response, though robust, was hindered by Austro-Hungarian diplomatic maneuvering. The timing of the note's delivery to Belgrade temporarily obstructed effective coordination between Russia and its French allies, as French leaders were en route back to France following a state visit to Russia. Nevertheless, French President Raymond Poincaré, a key figure in French diplomacy, conveyed that France would advise Russia to exercise moderation—on the condition that Germany exert similar restraint on its ally.

      In the United Kingdom, the response was characterized by a certain degree of restraint and measured diplomacy. The British government put forth a proposal for mediation by the four major powers (Germany, Italy, France, and Britain) to facilitate conciliation between Serbia and Austria-Hungary following Belgrade's occupation by Austro-Hungarian forces. Prime Minister Edward Grey asserted that Britain should play an active role in addressing the crisis, particularly in the event of a renewed Balkan war involving Austria-Hungary directly. However, by July 27, the Austro-Hungarian leadership underestimated the extent of Russian support for Serbia and misinterpreted Britain's position.

      The responses from Russia and Britain were perceived as deceptive by Austro-Hungarian officials, who misjudged both the extent of Russian backing for Serbia and the implications of the British declaration.
      Ultimately, the German government was made aware of the precise content of the Serbian note, albeit somewhat belatedly. The German government received a copy of the Serbian reply to the ultimatum at approximately midday on July 27. Subsequently, Gottlieb von Jagow, influenced by Wilhelm II's admiration for the quality of the Serbian reply, proposed that the Dual Monarchy restrict its military operations to a coup de main, with the objective of occupying Belgrade and defending this conquest. Additionally, the German Emperor advised the Dual Monarchy's military not to pursue Serbian troops following the occupation of Belgrade. The Germans viewed the capture of the Serbian capital as a means of exerting influence over the course of peace negotiations between the Dual Monarchy and Serbia. German ministers endorsed this strategy, aiming to contain the crisis through diplomatic exchanges between Wilhelm II and Nicholas II.


      Declaration of war on Serbia: July 27–28


      On July 27, Austrian Foreign Minister Leopold Berchtold transmitted a missive to Emperor Franz Joseph containing erroneous information. This information suggested that the Serbian army had launched an offensive against Imperial forces, resulting in casualties. Berchtold leveraged this claim to justify the preparation of a war declaration telegram against Serbia, which he planned to transmit the following day unless the emperor objected. He expressed concern that the Triple Entente might broker a peaceful resolution if war were not declared immediately.
      "Your Majesty,
      I have the honor to submit to Your Majesty, attached herewith, a draft telegram addressed to the Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs containing a declaration of war against Serbia. I very humbly suggest that Your Majesty authorize me to dispatch this telegram tomorrow morning and to simultaneously arrange for the official publication of the war declaration in Vienna and Budapest.
      Considering the Serbian government's response note, which was very cleverly drafted and handed over on March 28 by Mr. Pašić to the Imperial and Royal envoy, Baron Giesl, I find it lacking in substance though conciliatory in tone. I believe it is not impossible for the powers of the Triple Entente to still attempt a peaceful resolution of the conflict unless a decisive situation is created through the war declaration. According to a report from the 4th Army Corps Command, Serbian troops fired yesterday on our forces from boats on the Danube near Temes-Kubin, resulting in casualties.
      The response to the gunfire led to a larger skirmish. Hostilities are thus effectively underway, making it all the more necessary to ensure that our army, from the perspective of international law, has the freedom of movement that only becomes available when a state of war is declared.
      The notification of the state of war to neutral powers would be sent, with Your Majesty's supreme approval, concurrently with the declaration to their local representatives. I must note that His Imperial and Royal Highness, Archduke Friedrich, Commander-in-Chief of the Balkan Armed Forces, as well as the Chief of the General Staff, have opposed the issuance of the war declaration. Nonetheless, we have decided not to oppose the declaration being made tomorrow morning. With the utmost reverence,
      Vienna, July 27, 1914. [Signed] Berchtold."
      The text of the telegram and the dispatches sent to embassies on July 28, 1914, is as follows:
      "The Royal Government of Serbia, not having responded satisfactorily to the note that was delivered to it by the Minister of Austria-Hungary in Belgrade on July 23, 1914, the Imperial and Royal Government finds itself compelled to ensure the safeguarding of its rights and interests by its means and to resort to the force of arms for this purpose, particularly since Serbian troops have already attacked an Imperial and Royal Army detachment near Temes-Kubin. Austria-Hungary therefore considers itself, from this moment, to be in a state of war with Serbia.
      The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Austria-Hungary. [Signed] Count Berchtold."
      The purported assault at Temes-Kubin by the Serbian military, which was presented as a rationale for initiating hostilities and securing the Emperor's approval, was ultimately revealed to be a mere Austro-Hungarian operation aimed at capturing two Serbian steamboats. This operation resulted in no deaths or injuries. This event was no longer mentioned in the text published in the official gazette on July 28, 1914, at 4:25 a.m., which was subsequently picked up by press agencies.
      "Vienna, July 28.
      The Austro-Hungarian government has officially notified Serbia of the declaration of war.
      The Official Gazette, in a special edition, publishes the text of the declaration as follows:
      The Royal Government of Serbia, not having responded satisfactorily to the note that was delivered to it by the Minister of Austria-Hungary in Belgrade on July 23, 1914, the Imperial and Royal Government finds itself compelled to ensure the safeguarding of its rights and interests by its means and to resort to the force of arms for this purpose.
      Austria-Hungary therefore considers itself, from this moment, to be in a state of war with Serbia.
      The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Austria-Hungary. [Signed] Count Berchtold."


      See also


      Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand
      July Crisis
      Causes of World War I
      Austria-Hungary
      Kingdom of Serbia
      History of Austria-Hungary during World War I
      Franz Joseph I of Austria
      Peter I of Serbia
      Wilhelm II
      Leopold Berchtold
      Stephan Burián von Rajecz
      Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf
      István Tisza
      Nikola Pašić


      Notes


      Sources


      References




      Bibliography


      Bled, Jean-Paul (2014). L'Agonie d'une monarchie : Autriche-Hongrie 1914-1920 [The Agony of a Monarchy: Austria-Hungary 1914-1920] (in French). Paris: Taillandier. ISBN 979-10-210-0440-5.
      Beer, Siegfried (2008). "Les services du renseignement habsbourgeois ont-ils échoué ? La défaite des services du renseignement austro-hongrois dans la Première Guerre mondiale" [Did the Habsburg intelligence services fail? The defeat of Austro-Hungarian intelligence in the First World War]. Guerres Mondiales et Conflits Contemporains (in French). 4 (232): 73–85. doi:10.3917/gmcc.232.0073. Archived from the original on April 3, 2024.
      Clark, Christopher (2013). Les Somnambules : Été 1914 : comment l'Europe a marché vers la guerre [Les Somnambules: Summer 1914: how Europe marched to war] (in French). Paris: Flammarion. ISBN 978-2-08-121648-8.
      Cochet, François; Porte, Rémy (2008). Dictionnaire de la grande guerre : 1914-1918 [Dictionary of the Great War: 1914-1918] (in French). Paris: Robert Laffont. ISBN 978-2-221-10722-5.
      Fischer, Fritz (1970). Griff nach der Weltmacht [Germany's Aims in the First World War]. Paris: Éditions de Trévise.
      Hanotaux, Gabriel (1924). Histoire illustrée de la guerre de 1914 [Illustrated history of the 1914 war]. Vol. 2. Paris: Gounouilhou.
      Krumeich, Gerd (2014). Le Feu aux poudres : Qui a déclenché la guerre en 1914 ? [Le Feu aux poudres: Who started the war in 1914?]. Histoire (in French). Paris: Belin. ISBN 978-2-7011-9090-7.
      Lacroix-Riz, Annie (1996). Le Vatican, l'Europe et le Reich : De la Première Guerre mondiale à la guerre froide [The Vatican, Europe and the Reich: From the First World War to the Cold War]. Références Histoire. Paris: Armand Colin. ISBN 2-200-21641-6.
      Le Moal, Frédéric (2008). La Serbie du martyre à la victoire. 1914-1918 [Serbia from martyrdom to victory. 1914-1918]. Les Nations dans la Grande Guerre (in French). Paris: Éditions SOTECA. ISBN 978-2-916385-18-1.
      Renouvin, Pierre (1934). La Crise européenne et la Première Guerre mondiale [The European crisis and the First World War]. Peuples et civilisations (in French). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
      Roth, François (2014). Six mois qui incendièrent le monde : Juillet-décembre 1914 [Six months that set the world on fire: July-December 1914] (in French). Paris: Tallandier. ISBN 979-10-210-0378-1.
      Schiavon, Max (2011). L'Autriche-Hongrie dans la Première Guerre mondiale : La fin d'un empire [Austria-Hungary in the First World War: The end of an empire]. Les Nations dans la Grande Guerre (in French). Paris: Éditions SOTECA. ISBN 978-2-916385-59-4.
      Seiti, Arta (2015). Des guerres balkaniques à la Grande Guerre : un regard stratégique [From the Balkan Wars to the Great War: a strategic perspective] (in French). Paris: Les Cahiers de la Revue Défense Nationale. ISSN 2105-7508.


      External links


      "La Première page du journal français le Figaro du 25 juillet 1914" [Front page of the French newspaper Le Figaro, July 25, 1914] (in French). Archived from the original on December 30, 2021.
      Hanotaux, Gabriel. "Texte de l'ultimatum" [Ultimatum text]. Histoire illustrée de la guerre de 1914 (in French). pp. 89–90.
      Hanotaux, Gabriel. "Réponse de la Serbie" [Response from Serbia]. Histoire illustrée de la guerre de 1914 (in French). pp. 111–114.

    Kata Kunci Pencarian: