The Origins of the First World War: Controversies and Consensus (Making History)

£18.495
FREE Shipping

The Origins of the First World War: Controversies and Consensus (Making History)

The Origins of the First World War: Controversies and Consensus (Making History)

RRP: £36.99
Price: £18.495
£18.495 FREE Shipping

In stock

We accept the following payment methods

Description

In the immediate aftermath of the Versailles verdict, revisionist historians (many, but not all, sponsored by post-war German governments in the 1920s and 30s) have tried to prove it wrong. Among countless arguments, they highlighted Russia and France’s responsibility and stressed that Britain could have played a more active role in preventing the escalation of the so-called July Crisis, which led to the outbreak of war. Throughout the twentieth century, this debate ebbed and flowed. It was particularly ferocious in the 1960s when a German historian, Fritz Fischer, claimed he had evidence to show that Germany had been more responsible than other nations, thus undoing decades of revisionism which had resulted in a comfortable compromise.

Germany and the Origins of World War One’, in Matthew Jeffries (ed.), Ashgate Reseach Companion to Imperial Germany, Ashgate, London 2014, 413-431 Here Annika explains her research and why it’s essential to understand the origins of the war and the controversy the topic has sparked. The hundred-year debate Julikrise und Kriegsschuldfrage – Thesen und Stand der Forschung', Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, Spring 2014So when we now look at the July Crisis, my opinion is that it’s sort of a crisis of two halves, if you like; the first half, up until the Serbian ultimatum is really very much a crisis that’s shaped by decisions made in Berlin and primarily in Vienna; but that after the ultimatum, everyone obviously is involved in decision-making and they make decisions which will affect the outcome of the crisis. Would you agree with that or do you see that differently?

the long controversy around the question, why did the war break out in the first place? Over the next four weeks, some renowned historians will share their research and analysis with you. And you’ll discover the devastating impact of the war on individuals and on whole societies. While this might seem like a sobering learning experience, it’s also a moving story that’s lost none of its fascination more than a century after it began. Der hundertjährige Krieg um die Kriegsschuldfrage', in Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, 65, 5/6 2014, pp.303-337 So when we look at evidence of German culpability, the documents that stand out in particular which were first found by Fritz Fischer are those relating to the war council of December 1912 and then those relating to war aims – the famous September programme of 1914 – and I just wonder what your take is on these events and on these documents? Joern Leonhard: We should be careful not to talk about direct analogies. If we look to the summer of 1914, we see factors that help us to better understand the situation at the moment. And the first thing I would mention is the politics of history. There is some sort of imperialism and fear of imperialism after the end of empires. If you look at the situation in Russia, this is a post-imperial state. If you look at the conflict zone from the Baltic states to southeast Europe to the Middle and Far East, it is in a way the shadow zones of the three former empires -- the Russian Empire, the Habsburg Empire, and the Ottoman Empire. And the breaking up of these empires is a legacy of World War I. And in a way you could argue that following World War I, there has been in many ways never been a stable state structure filling the gap that came up after the end of these empires.

The debate over war origins ushered in the golden age of diplomatic history. Never before—or since—was there such widespread interest among the general public in what historians of diplomacy had to say. Not only did these massive studies sell in unprecedented numbers for serious works of scholarship, but they made their authors famous. Footnote 124 Guilt or Responsibility? The Hundred Year Debate on the Origins of the First World War (2015-12-31) The First World War: Inevitable, Avoidable, Improbable or Desirable? Recent Interpretations on War Guilt and the War’s Origins’, German History, vol. 25, No 1, 2007, pp.78-95 The “war-guilt” debate is, without a doubt, one of the most protracted historical controversies of modern history. Why did Franz Ferdinand's violent death unleash a war of previously unprecedented horror and scale? This murderous act resulted in the July Crisis, “the most complex [event] of modern times, perhaps of any time so far,” and ended in “the most complicated of all wars,” leading to a hundred-year controversy and a heated quest to identify “guilt” among some of the participants. Footnote 9 That question seemed easy to settle when the war had just broken out: everyone was certain, of course, that their war was a defensive one. In the wake of the Allies’ victory, it was also easy to attribute “war guilt” to the losers. But over the next hundred years, the term guilt would fall out of fashion; at the same time, the question of deciding who had been responsible would remain a topic of fraught debate. It would be an exaggeration to claim that the long debate about the war's origins had been entirely settled before the centenary, but there were nonetheless broad agreements that had been hard fought for during decades of debate. The Library's buildings remain fully open but some services are limited, including access to collection items. We're

In conclusion, this study makes a very significant contribution to the scholarship on both Wilhelmine Germany and the military pre-history of the Great War. In the current state of research, it is clearly the definitive statement on the role and career of the younger Moltke as Chief of the Great General Staff. I suspect that it will remain as such for a long time to come. Notes Mombauer studied history at the Westfälische-Wilhelms-Universität (University of Münster) in Münster, Germany, and at the University of Sussex, where she was awarded a D.Phil. in history in 1998. She joined the Open University staff in 1998 as lecturer in modern European history. In 2003, she also became a visiting fellow at the Australian Defence Force Academy in Canberra, Australia. [1] Mombauer was a contributor to Michael Portillo's documentary about the causes of World War I, The Great War of Words, broadcast by BBC Radio 4 in February 2014. [4] The Kaiser. New Research on Wilhelm II’s role in Imperial Germany, Cambridge University Press, 2003 (edited with Wilhelm Deist) Find out more about this bookGeneral and academic interest in the war peaked well before the actual centenary of its outbreak (the date of which differed, of course, depending on which country was commemorating it). Commemoration, as well as the way historians wrote about the war and the way their audiences received this new work differed, too, depending on the national context. In countries whose past has continued to be affected disproportionately by the events of 1914–1918, or where the war has featured largely in national memory (such as Germany and Serbia, for example), the nature of the debate showed clearly that World War I is not yet “history.” Mombauer was a contributor to Max Hastings' documentary about the causes of World War I, The Necessary War, broadcast by BBC 2 in February 2014. [5] Selected works [ edit ] Sean McMeekin: History never repeats itself in exactly the same way. I see the appeal of these analogies -- that China is Germany. But, of course, China could equally well be Russia in 1914. The Russian economy was growing at a rate of about 9 percent a year in 1914. In fact, in many ways, Russia on the eve of World War I was a far better analogy for China today. Supposedly, even if you believe the traditional historiography the whole problem is the growth of Russian power and that was what was actually destabilizing Europe -- not the growth of German power. So, sometimes even when we try to learn from history, we draw the wrong analogies and the wrong lessons. Annika Mombauer's research interests are in nineteenth and twentieth-century European history, in particular Imperial Germany and the origins of the First World War, in the history of the First World War and in its historiography. Where is the debate headed? All too often historians have attempted to predict the future of this century-long controversy—and they have nearly always got it wrong, thus making it presumptuous to make confident predictions. Footnote 126 In a summary of the debate as it had developed up to the end of 2012, Gerhard Groß was confident that the topic would continue to exercise public opinion in the run-up to the centenary and provide for “an exciting discussion,” but he did not expect “a new Fischer-controversy with a great deal of public attention like the one in the 1960s.” As we have seen, that turned out to be far from the mark. Footnote 127



  • Fruugo ID: 258392218-563234582
  • EAN: 764486781913
  • Sold by: Fruugo

Delivery & Returns

Fruugo

Address: UK
All products: Visit Fruugo Shop