THE REAL CULPRITS OF THE WORLD WAR I

Authors

  • Radoslav Gaćinović Институт за политичке студије Београд

Keywords:

science, revision, guilt, war, propaganda

Abstract

Majority of most eminent world historians agree among themselves that main culprits for the beginning of the First World War are Germany and Austro-Hungary. With his in depth-research a historian Fritz Fisher challenged three dogmas of German national awareness that had been established from Sarajevo Assasination throughout whole period between two world wars. First dogma was that from 1914 to 1918 the Reich led a defensive war and moreover, that it was the word about “the battle for survival”. Second dogma was that the Reich did not cause the beginning of the First World War. The previous two dogmas were the basis for the creation of third dogma, which was that the Nazi Reich and its non-doubtful provocation of the Second World War was not compatible with whole previous German history and that it was an exception and coincidence. Historian Fisher concluded that there had been the aspiration present to obtain the world power with associated objections to it (Imperium Germanicum), which were subject to conditions which could have changed in accord with conditions at time, but not significantly. Fisher, with his assistants, among them first of all with Imanuel Geiss, conducted the research activities which led to finding “the solution” that the Sarajevo assassination was used as the cause for the beginning of the war. In his research Fisher proved that basic objective of foreign policy of Germany had not changed from 1871 to 1945. In the survey of BBC “Who is guilty for the First World War?” ten eminent historians gave their answers and they were Sir Max Hugh Macdonald Hastings, Sir Richard Evans, Heather Jones, John Rohl, Gerhard Hirschfeld, Annika Mombauer, Sean McMeekin, Catriona Pennell, GarySheffield and David Stevenson. Majority of these historians kept their former opinion regarding dominant German responsibility, along with the responsibility of Austro-Hungarian monarchy which had wanted armed conflict with Serbia for a long time. Historian Max Hastings has repeated many times his attitudes that “he was not convinced by arguments against Serbia” and that he did not believe that Russia wanted European war in 1914, because Russian leaders were aware of the fact that they could have been in much stronger position two years later after the program of armament was finished. Historian John Rohl held similar opinion and he also underlined Germany and Austro-Hungarian monarchy as the culprits, claiming that the First World War “did not start just by accident nor due to the failure of diplomacy”, but as “the result of conspiracy of Germany and Austro-Hungarian monarchy which hoped that Great Britain would stay out of the conflict.” Professors Gary Sheffield and David Stevenson also belong to the group of historians who have no doubt in primary responsibility of German and Austro-Hungarian monarchy. David Stevenson repeated the firm opinion that Germany was the main culprit and was most responsible for “the support to Austro-Hungarian monarchy to attack Serbia, although Germany knew that it could lead to escalation of the conflict... Without the support of Germany Austro-Hungarian monarchy would not act in such a drastic way.” Historian Catriona Pennell also blamed Germany and Austro-Hungarian monarchy for the war and underlined that „the ultimatum of 23rd of July to Serbia was formulated in such way that it was practically impossible to accept it.“ Historians like Luigi Albertini and Fritz Fisher have discovered many more details regarding the guilt of Germany and AustroHungarian monarchy that had been intentionally excluded from publishing. Since the end of Second World War many more documents of this kind was discovered and so historians could understand the events which had preceded the beginning of the war in 1914. This continuous interest of public for the causes for the beginning of the First World War has triggered the interest of academics to thoroughly research motivation and causes for the First World War. It resulted with production of a huge number of documented proofs regarding the cause of the First World War, which was also confirmed by decisions of Treaty of Versailles Peace Conference.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adler, S. “The War-Guilt Question” and American Disillusionment, 1918-1928, Jurnal of Modern History xxiii, No, 1. March 1951

Antić,O. Veliki rat, PEČAT, br. 318, od 16. maja 2014,

Bjelajac, M. 1914-2014 Zašto revizija - stare i nove kontraverze o uzrocima Prvog svetskog rata, Medija centar ODBRANA, Beograd, 2014,

Burz, U. “Austrija and the Great War: Official Publications in the 1920s and 1930s”, u: Keith Wilson (ed), Forging Collective memory. Governments and International Historians through Two World Wars, Berghan, Oxford, 1996,

Geiss,I. “Die manipulierte Kriegsschuldfrage”. Deutsche Reichspolitik in der Julikrise 1914,

Gaćinović, R. Nasilje nad Srbima u HH veku - uroci i posledice, knjiga Prva, EVRO BOOK, Beograd, 2017,

Kanner, N. Kaiserliche Katastrophenpolitik, Vienna 1922;

Kantorowicz, H. Gutachten zur Kriegsschuldfrage, edited by I, Geiss,Frankfurt 1967,

Lichnowsky, Heading for the Abyss, London 1928,

Mombauer, A. Uzroci Prvog svetskog rata, CLIO, Beograd, 2013,

Poincare, R. Au Service de la France, Paris 1926.

Renouvin, P. “How the War Came”, u: Foreign Affairs,Apr, 1929,

Everly, S. B. The Coming of the War, 1914,2 vols, New York 1930,

Iljič, V. Lenin, Imperialism – The Last State of Capitalism, in Selected Works,English translation, Moscow 1968,

Holger, H. (ed)The Outbreak of World War I: Causes and Responsibilities, 5th revised edn, Lehington and Toronto 1991,

Holger H.“Clio Deceived”: PatrioticSelf-Consorhip in Germany after the War`, first published in International Security, 12, 1987

Wilhelm Marx, W. ”The Responsibility for the War”, Foreign Affairs,4, 1926,

Downloads

Published

2019-10-02

How to Cite

Gaćinović, R. . (2019). THE REAL CULPRITS OF THE WORLD WAR I. KULTURA POLISA, 16(39), 99–113. Retrieved from https://kpolisa.com/index.php/kp/article/view/338

Issue

Section

Original scientific work

Categories

Metrics

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>