Essays academic service


Debating on the beginning of world war one

The debate on the origins of the First World War Updated Thursday 19th December 2013 The way historians have viewed the causes of WWI has changed in the hundred years since war broke out.

The debate on the origins of World War One | The British Library

How could the death of one man, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who was assassinated on 28 June 1914, lead to the deaths of millions in a war of unprecedented scale and ferocity? This is the question at the heart of the debate on the origins of the First World War. Finding the answer to this question has exercised historians for 100 years.

In July 1914, everyone in Europe was convinced they were fighting a defensive war. Governments had worked hard to ensure that they did not appear to be the aggressor in July and August 1914.

The debate on the origins of the First World War

This was crucial because the vast armies of soldiers that would be needed could not be summoned for a war of aggression. Socialists, of whom there were many millions by 1914, would not have supported a belligerent foreign policy and could only be relied upon to fight in a defensive war.

French and Belgians, Russians, Serbs and Britons were convinced they were indeed involved in a defensive struggle for just aims.

Austrians and Hungarians were fighting to avenge the death of Franz Ferdinand.

But if not they who had after all invaded Belgium and France in the first few weeks of fightingthen who had caused this war? The war guilt ruling 850 650 By Edward N. President Woodrow Wilson For the victors, this was an easy question to answer, and they agreed at the peace conference at Versailles in 1919 that Germany and its allies had been responsible for causing the Great War. Based on this decision, vast reparation demands were made.

Sponsored by post-war governments and with access to vast amounts of documents, revisionist historians set about proving that the victors at Versailles had been wrong. In the interwar years, such views influenced a new interpretation that no longer highlighted German war guilt, but instead identified a failure in the alliance system before 1914.

About Kate Lindsay

With such a conciliatory accident theory, Germany was off the hook. A comfortable consensus emerged and lasted all through the Second World War and beyond, by which time the First World War had been overshadowed by an even deadlier conflict. The Fischer Thesis The first major challenge to this interpretation was advanced in Germany in the 1960s, where the historian Fritz Fischer published a startling new thesis which threatened to overthrow the existing consensus.

Germany, he argued, did have the main share of responsibility for the outbreak of the war. Moreover, its leaders had deliberately unleashed the war in pursuit of aggressive foreign policy aims which were startlingly similar to those pursued by Hitler in 1939. Backed up by previously unknown primary evidence, this new interpretation exploded the comfortable post-war view of shared responsibility.

They attempted to discredit him and his followers in a public debate of unprecedented ferocity. Some of those arguing about the causes of the war had fought in it, in the conviction that they were fighting a defensive war.

  1. With such a conciliatory accident theory, Germany was off the hook. Moreover, its leaders had deliberately unleashed the war in pursuit of aggressive foreign policy aims which were startlingly similar to those pursued by Hitler in 1939.
  2. Socialists, of whom there were many millions by 1914, would not have supported a belligerent foreign policy and could only be relied upon to fight in a defensive war. A comfortable consensus emerged and lasted all through the Second World War and beyond, by which time the First World War had been overshadowed by an even deadlier conflict.
  3. With such a conciliatory accident theory, Germany was off the hook.
  4. Some of those arguing about the causes of the war had fought in it, in the conviction that they were fighting a defensive war. This is the question at the heart of the debate on the origins of the First World War.

Little wonder that they objected to the suggestion that Germany had deliberately started that conflict. Many did concede, however, that Germany seemed to have made use of the July Crisis to unleash a war. In the wake of the Fischer controversy, historians also focused more closely on the role of Austria-Hungary in the events that led to war, and concluded that in Vienna, at least as much as in Berlin, the crisis precipitated by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was seen as a golden opportunity to try and defeat a ring of enemies that seemed to threaten the central powers.

Recent revisions In recent years this post-Fischer consensus has in turn been revised. After 100 years of debate, every conceivable interpretation seems to have been advanced, dismissed and the revisited. In some of the most recent publications, even seeking to attribute responsibility, as had so confidently been done at Versailles, is now eschewed. Such doubts did not trouble those who sought to attribute war guilt in 1919 and during much of this long debate, but this question will need to be asked as the controversy continues past the centenary.