It was the cobweb of alliances and treaties that robbed the European powers of diplomatic flexibility, forcing them to march in unison over the cliff face of war. It was the industrialists hungry for the profits that building the machines of war would bring them. It was the very process of mobilization a process that once started could not be stopped until the bloodletting was inevitable. It was the "generals," intent on going to war. It was Great Britain's lack of forcefulness in dealing with Germany. It was Berlin's refusal to pressure Vienna to moderate its demands, France's refusal to rein in its Russian ally. It was the arrogance and belligerence of Kaiser Wilhelm, the stubbornness of the Austrian government, it was Russia's unwillingness to back down in its support of Serbia. Who was to blame for the First World War? The history books offer us no shortage of candidates. Implicit in the idea of blame is a responsibility and an obligation to make amends. The "causes" of the war invariably figure prominently in the historical literature, with a recurring theme being the question of "blame." At first glance cause and blame might appear to be the same thing. Add the foreign language contribution and the number grows even larger. Approximately 40,000 books have been written in the English language on the subject, some multi-volume tomes. The events leading up to the First World War, and its subsequent execution, have produced a voluminous literature.
0 kommentar(er)
