There have been many debates about how the First World War started in 1914 among historians. A German historian, Fritz Fischer, proposed the most common theory about how the war started by putting the blame completely on Germany. However, historians nowadays tend to overlook this proposal and try to re-apportion the guilt, which is not merely based on either the sole-guilt thesis or the sole- innocence thesis. Four different trends in the historiography have appeared that explain how the war started with exonerating Germany from the sole war guilt. Annika Mombauer has clearly laid out these four trends in a review article and has stated that individual decision-making is the most auspicious thesis in her opinion why the broke out. While she
…show more content…
MacMillan agrees with this thesis, yet she is quite hesitant about it. The mutual suspicion and distrust amongst the nations could be the reason why the war broke out. However, she mentions that the great powers have gone through similar crises before 1914 in history and they were able to avoid wars. She also argues that it is very hard to determine what good have come out of the First World War since the destruction was massive. Although, she mentions that the end of the war led to one positive recognition; that the world needs strong international organizations in order to prevent these sorts of things happening again. …show more content…
Four main arguments have been formed in historiography that focus on the origins of war with the aim of trying not to blame Germany. In the review article, Annika Mombauer states her opinion that the fourth trend, certain decisions made by individuals, is most realistic why the war broke out. MacMillan agrees with this point as well, but she considers international prewar tensions to be one of the reasons why the war started. Furthermore, it is important to discern that the article mostly blames German and Austro-Hungarian decision-makers while MacMillan relatively disbelieves in the idea that the roots of the First World War lie within only one country’s decision-makers. She believes that the origins of the war are such complex combinations of individuals and circumstances that one cannot simply just put the blame for the outbreak of the war on one country or one
MacMillan agrees with this thesis, yet she is quite hesitant about it. The mutual suspicion and distrust amongst the nations could be the reason why the war broke out. However, she mentions that the great powers have gone through similar crises before 1914 in history and they were able to avoid wars. She also argues that it is very hard to determine what good have come out of the First World War since the destruction was massive. Although, she mentions that the end of the war led to one positive recognition; that the world needs strong international organizations in order to prevent these sorts of things happening again. …show more content…
Four main arguments have been formed in historiography that focus on the origins of war with the aim of trying not to blame Germany. In the review article, Annika Mombauer states her opinion that the fourth trend, certain decisions made by individuals, is most realistic why the war broke out. MacMillan agrees with this point as well, but she considers international prewar tensions to be one of the reasons why the war started. Furthermore, it is important to discern that the article mostly blames German and Austro-Hungarian decision-makers while MacMillan relatively disbelieves in the idea that the roots of the First World War lie within only one country’s decision-makers. She believes that the origins of the war are such complex combinations of individuals and circumstances that one cannot simply just put the blame for the outbreak of the war on one country or one