Diplomacy's Dark Side: When Talks Fail, What's Next?

The When Diplomacy Fails podcast, created and hosted by Dr. Zack Twamley, is a historical podcast that focuses on different wars throughout history. It covers the buildup to, outbreak of, and consequences of various conflicts, including the stories of the people behind them. The podcast delves into international relations, diplomacy, and the intrigue and drama that accompany these historical events. Listeners can expect to hear about the fascinating characters and the juicy details that led to wars, how they were concluded, and the impact they had. The podcast is available on Podbay and other platforms, and listeners can also support the show through Patreon for bonus content and exclusive series.

Explore related products

International Relations (11th Edition)

$109.99 $179.99

Big Ideas in Social Science

$32 $32

Broadcasting Freedom: The Cold War Triumph of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty

$33.99 $45

The Anti-Capitalist Chronicles (Red Letter)

$22.95 $10

How to Win a Trade War

$29 $29

Lights on Europe: On values guiding the careers of leaders who shine

$27.2

The role of Britain in resolving the crisis

Britain played a significant role in attempting to resolve the crisis and prevent war. Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary, believed that a mediation scheme involving four uninvolved powers—Britain, France, Germany, and Italy—could arbitrate the Austro-Serb dispute and preserve peace. He proposed a conference scheme to the European courts, stressing Britain's commitment to peace and freedom of action. When this was rejected, he modified his approach and accepted other suggestions, such as bilateral Austro-Russian negotiations. Grey also encouraged Germany to push for the mediation idea, which they did reluctantly.

Britain's position of neutrality and its guarantee of France's neutrality were also important factors. The German government believed that Britain had affirmed its intention to remain neutral, which may have been a result of vagueness on the part of the British Foreign Secretary or a misunderstanding with the German ambassador, Lichnowsky. This neutrality was significant in the diplomatic efforts to prevent war.

However, Britain's diplomatic efforts were not entirely successful. Grey's diplomacy was outpaced by ultimatums from Berlin, and despite his attempts, war broke out. The question of Russia's mobilisation and its potential intervention in the Austro-Serb dispute was a critical factor. Britain's leverage in the situation may have been impacted by its late response to the crisis, as announcements from Ambassadors Buchanan and Paleologue in St. Petersburg were delayed.

Overall, Britain actively sought to resolve the crisis through mediation and neutrality, but ultimately, their efforts could not prevent the outbreak of war.

German attempts to maintain neutrality

The “When Diplomacy Fails” podcast episode on the July Crisis examines the events leading up to World War I in 1914. It delves into the complex interplay of international relations, diplomacy, and national interests that ultimately resulted in the outbreak of war.

Germany's attempts to maintain neutrality in the escalating conflict are a significant aspect of this narrative. Initially, Germany found itself in a delicate position, encouraging Austria-Hungary's declaration of war on Serbia on July 28 while also seeking to avoid a wider European conflict. Germany's reluctance to fully commit to mediation efforts proposed by Britain reflected a desire to maintain neutrality and avoid offending its European counterparts.

However, Germany's neutrality was challenged by its own strategic interests. Behind the scenes, German diplomacy was actively courting Romania and the Ottoman Empire, indicating a willingness to expand its influence and secure alliances. This dual approach of diplomatic engagement and military posturing reflected Germany's determination to pursue its goals while managing the potential consequences.

As tensions escalated, Germany's actions became more aggressive. On August 4, 1914, Germany violated Belgian neutrality by attacking through neutral Belgium in an attempt to quickly defeat France before Russia could mobilize. This critical move prompted Britain to declare war on Germany, bringing its global empire into the conflict and rapidly expanding the scale of the war.

In conclusion, Germany's attempts to maintain neutrality were ultimately unsuccessful. Its initial diplomatic efforts to manage the conflict gave way to more assertive military strategies. The complex dynamics of international relations and the pursuit of national interests contributed to the failure of diplomacy and the outbreak of World War I.

Efforts to prepare the people for war

The podcast "When Diplomacy Fails" delves into the efforts made to prepare people for war, exploring the intricate diplomacy, intriguing characters, and dramatic events that shaped history. In one episode, they uncover the forgotten story of Britain's attempts to resolve a crisis and prepare its people for the potential fallout. Here are some key paragraphs detailing these efforts:

British Mediation Attempts

Sir Edward Grey, Britain's Foreign Secretary, played a pivotal role in trying to maintain peace. He proposed a mediation scheme involving four uninvolved powers—Britain, France, Germany, and Italy—to arbitrate the Austro-Serb dispute. Grey's approach was to preserve Britain's "free hand," allowing it to maintain leverage and not commit to a declaration of war. He modified his proposals when necessary, such as accepting bilateral Austro-Russian negotiations, showcasing his commitment to exploring all diplomatic avenues.

German Diplomatic Maneuverings

The German government also engaged in diplomatic efforts to prepare for potential conflicts. They worked behind the scenes to court Romania and the Ottoman Empire, with a particular focus on the latter. Additionally, they reluctantly supported Britain's mediation scheme out of fear of offending their British counterparts. However, the question of Russia loomed large, and the Germans struggled to obtain clarity on Russian intentions, as Sergei Sazonov, Russia's foreign minister, kept quiet about preliminary military measures already underway.

Military Preparations

While diplomacy was ongoing, military preparations were also taking place. The podcast mentions that the Tsar approved the period preparatory to war and the mobilisation of key military districts, signalling an increased likelihood of Russian intervention. This should have served as a warning to Austria, yet its statesmen continued to forge ahead, seemingly unaware of the consequences. The German ambassador, on the other hand, made desperate efforts to persuade Russia to stand down, conveying that while Germany did not want war, they felt forced into it.

Building Public Support

Preparing the people for war also entailed building public support and rallying national sentiment. In the case of the 1916 Rising mentioned in the podcast, charismatic leaders like Eamonn Ceannt played a critical role in demanding discipline from his men and preparing them for the harsh fighting that would occur in South Dublin Union. Leaders on all sides of a conflict use their influence and oratory skills to unite their people and foster a sense of determination and sacrifice in the face of impending warfare.

Explore related products

Studies in Contemporary Journalism and Communication in Russia’s Provinces (Studies in Contemporary Russia)

$44.79 $55.99

Studies in Contemporary Journalism and Communication in Russia’s Provinces (Studies in Contemporary Russia)

$169.18 $190

When Diplomacy Fails (Freehold Series - Ripple Creek Book 3)

$6.99 $7.99

For God or The Devil: A History of The Thirty Years War (When Diplomacy Fails)

$39.95 $42

The Russians and Prussians During the Seven Years' War

$5.38 $6.99

When Diplomacy Fails: An Anthology of Military Science Fiction

$30

Russian assertiveness in foreign policy

In the 21st century, Russian assertiveness has been characterised by a perceived distancing from diplomatic efforts and a willingness to use military force. This was evident in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which occurred despite diplomatic efforts to avert it. The Biden administration, for example, attempted to use both traditional and innovative tactics to avoid armed conflict, but ultimately failed to deter Russian aggression. This pattern of behaviour has been described as "hostage diplomacy," with Russia engaging in power grabs that undermine international norms and create a more war-prone world.

Additionally, Russia has been accused of engaging in "hostage diplomacy," with cases such as those of Paul Whelan and Brittney Griner, who were freed in a prisoner swap. Russia has also been accused of duplicity and unreliability in diplomacy, as seen in the 2025 Kursk attack, where Ukraine allegedly broke an agreement and targeted Russian energy infrastructure. This incident was part of a pattern of deception and provocation, undermining diplomatic efforts and signalling a potential escalation.

Moreover, Russian assertiveness has been on display in its support for Syria. In 2013, Russia's backing of Syria's chemical weapons agreement was a diplomatic effort to prevent US military intervention. However, the use of chemical weapons continued, and Russia's threat to veto any UN Security Council resolution on Syria limited the effectiveness of diplomatic responses. This assertiveness has continued under President Vladimir Putin, as seen in the 2022 Ukraine invasion, with some analysts suggesting he is beyond appeals to reason or logic.

Overall, Russian assertiveness in foreign policy has been a notable feature of its diplomacy, with a willingness to use military force and a perceived lack of engagement in diplomatic efforts. While diplomacy remains essential, the limits of its effectiveness in the face of assertive actors have also been highlighted.

The question of Belgian neutrality

Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary, played a pivotal role in these delicate negotiations. He proposed a conference scheme to the European courts, emphasising the British government's commitment to peace and freedom of action. However, this proposal was rejected, forcing Grey to modify his approach and consider alternative suggestions such as bilateral Austro-Russian negotiations.

The German government faced a difficult decision as the crisis intensified. They received a message from London offering a potential lifeline: the guarantee of British and French neutrality if Germany respected it. This proposal carried significant weight during the final hours of European peace. However, Germany's stance on Belgian neutrality remained unclear, despite understanding its importance to London.

As the situation escalated, France also declared its intention to respect Belgian neutrality, further complicating the diplomatic landscape. The question of Belgian neutrality was intricately linked to the broader dynamics of the crisis, with Britain's conditional neutrality influencing the united defiance of France and Russia against Austrian behaviour. Ultimately, the question of Belgian neutrality was a critical factor in the intricate web of diplomacy that preceded the outbreak of World War I.

Frequently asked questions