After the war, people dealt with what had happened in different ways. We’ll study how writers and artists attempted to come to terms with the experience. And finally, we’ll explore On the eve of the centenary of the outbreak of the First World War in 2014, the debate once again became heated as new revisionist publications sparked controversy. Having researched Germany’s decision making in and before 1914 for more than 20 years, I wanted to contribute to the conversation. Helmuth von Moltke, the overlooked architect of the war

The Fischer controversy, documents, and the ‘truth’ about the Origins of the First World War (2013-04)The goal of German and Austrian diplomats following the Sarajevo incident was to try to localize a conflict in the Balkans. Now, this may have been unrealistic, but the ideal scenario in both Berlin and Vienna was for Austria-Hungary to be able to confront Serbia without the other powers intervening. Russia's own policy or position, of course, was to continentalize the crisis and then the conflict. To make sure that France would get involved, and also Britain. To make sure that if it came to war, Britain and France would fight on their side. So, in this sense, turning it into a European and world conflagration was actually Russia's policy. That is not to say that Russia bears sole responsibility either. That is to say, it was the combination of the Austro-German response to Sarajevo and then the Russian response to the Austrian move against Serbia. This is what produced the Great War. Historians of the Great War found themselves in high demand in 2014. The looming anniversary naturally prompted publishers to commission titles that were designed to make a splash, cause debate, and spark public interest. The market was consequently flooded with publications that attempted to explain why war had broken out in 1914. Few could have predicted, however, the full extent of public and media interest in World War I. Nor could one have expected that the question of the origins of the war, in particular, would once again be paramount and the subject of widespread, heated debate.

For many Germans, this radical new interpretation ended a century of blame for the outbreak of World War I. As Michael Epkenhans observes, Clark's apparent exoneration of Germany's role in the origins of the war had “a near-magical effect on a large public [audience] and many German historians.” Footnote 43 Clark's book “buried six-feet deep the thesis of Germany's main responsibility,” one journalist commented approvingly. Footnote 44 In an early review of Clark's book in Der Spiegel, historian Holger Afflerbach summed up the emerging new consensus that “the Germans are guilty of [causing] the World War I—but not more so than others.” Footnote 45 The German public eagerly accepted this new interpretation, and many historians agreed. Footnote 46 Summing up the most recent developments in the field, Samuel R. Williamson identified an “erosion of the German [guilt] paradigm” in the historical literature. Footnote 47 Germany and the Origins of World War One’, in Matthew Jeffries (ed.), Ashgate Reseach Companion to Imperial Germany, Ashgate, London 2014, 413-431 there is no need for scholars to go on a roundtrip through the capitals of Europe with the aim of finding out that other decision-makers were more responsible for the First World War than the two emperors and their advisers. Berlin and Vienna continue to be the best places for historians to look closely for clues as to why war broke out in 1914. Footnote 82 Sir Edward Grey, Germany, and the Outbreak of the First World War: A Re-Evaluation', International History Review, April 2016, 38, No.2, 301-325

You might also be interested in:

Helmuth von Moltke: A General in crisis?’, in Matthew S. Seligmann and Matthew Hughes (eds), Leadership in Conflict, 1914-1918, Leo Cooper, London 2000, pp. 95-116, 0-85052-751-1. The German Reich was not “guilty” of World War I. Such a category did not exist then, for, according to the code of European state wars, sovereign states had the “ ius ad bellum” as long as they could claim a violation of their interests. In 1914, this right to war applied least to Great Britain because the United Kingdom could not claim an immediate interest of coalition obligation for an intervention in a local war (between Austria-Hungary and Serbia). Only the British entry into the war turned the original conflict into a global disaster. Footnote 114 This book is a unique collection of diplomatic and military documents for the years leading up to the outbreak of the First World War. It brings together newly-discovered documents as well as many not previously available in English, drawn from a broad range of sources and countries. It is an essential collection for anyone studying the origins of the First World War.