James Joll's Argumentative Analysis

James Joll was a follower of the Fisher school of thought in that he believed that the opening of the German war guilt clause in the Treaty of Versailles was relevant in the discussion of the origins of World War II, but that it allowed for there to be a humanization of the actors in World War I. In his study of History is focus is not on only the political and diplomatic issues that arise from war but the impact that individuals have on the system. In the case of WWI there was many countries whose base of power was concentrated in one central person. If one person is the basis of all foreign affairs it is safe to assume that their proceeding actions are a result of their own political ambitions and are thus open to bias. Fishers view on the …show more content…
His ability to gather information from those in East Germany, served as an issue for many of his critics. In Joll’s article he states that, “One of the most widespread grounds for attacking Fisher is that he has dealt exclusively with German war aims and worked exclusively on German documents.” His defense is that it is not physically possible for one man to be able to analyze all documents that exist on the topic, without focusing on one country one looses the ability to complete a total analysis. As an individual whose life was affected by the aftermath of both world wars, it is of no surprise that the idea of continuation is something that would uses as an origin of …show more content…
In the case of Ritter he is staunchly against the idea that the wars were fought on a scale of continuation since in the first World War, Germany was acting on the defense instead of the defense. In this argument if Germany was simply reacting to the actions taken by it’s surrounding nations than it would be unjust to blame World War I on Germany and that Hitlers reign was an anomaly in the annals of Germanic history. What his theory tends to lack is a historical hindsight. In the contemporary sense, Germany has already taken responsibility for their part in the events leading to the July Crisis, what the true question is did their lack of complete acceptance lead to the hole in nationalism that allowed for Hitler to take rise. In a sense Levin agrees with Fisher that the German military initiative was essentially an act of agression upon the other nations. In other words even with the militarism of the Franco- Russian alliance, as well as their mobilization it was not enough of a direct threat for the level of weapons stockpiling and advancements that took place in Germany before the war. Furthermore there is blame that Ritter places on Britain for their choice to practice non agression in the early stages of the war. In other words the whole war started because Britain had no desire to place itself in a war that truly would not benefit them in any fashion by entering. Ritter being a