On Friday, Malto posed the question- who do you blame for World War I? This is the type of inquiry history professors make because it is necessary and thought-provoking for students, while knowing no definitive answer exists even among countless historians. We were posed this question from a national standpoint in my AP 20th century course. It's a fine place to start (should we blame the Serbs? Austrians? Russians? Germans?) but there is a great fallacy in thinking of countries as single, acting units. After the semester's examination so far, I think Germany is the best example of such fracture and disunity, to the extent that blaming Germany as a whole for World War I is embarassing... in retrospect. Where are the specific factors? To find these, I think you have to start with the most pervading element of German society/government post-unification: disunity.
It seems natural to start with Kaiser's assertion that "Bethmann in 1914 risked war because of a mistaken belief that Germany's international position demanded it. Sharing the widespread conviction that German expansion was necessary and estimating that Germany's chances for success were diminishing, the chancellor made decisions that led directly to war." Kaiser blames Bethmann Hollweg in many ways, but who demanded war as a reinforcement for Germany's international position? The amplified foreign policy of the Weltpolitik era was a means of coordinating the uncoordinated German government- the splintered Reichstag, the chancellor, and the Kaiser. However, Weltpolitik was "a patriotic umbrella," not the reform this government really demanded. It wore off before war broke out, and was not a feasible domestic distraction by the time Bethmann came into office in 1909.
Social fracture was intense in the years leading up to and during war. There was severe polarity of town and country, problems with nationalities, and the fastest industrialization of all time occurring simultaneously. Political and social groups mushroomed ubiquitously, and vied for whatever best served their individual interests (Sammlung). Getting the Germans together would clearly take an extreme agent.
If disunity was the problem, and war was the solution, than Kaiser's blame seems founded- "war took place only because Bethmann circumvented the decision-making structure of the German governement." War was the solution for Bethmann alone? There were plenty of war-hawks in Germany, looking to assert bloody honor. The problems Germany experienced before 1914 would not be given a sweeping conclusion come conflict-time. Instead, far worse problems would emerge, and haunt the nation for years to come.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Today it seems very unreal to blame war on one single country, but your argument that the disunity among Germans is interesting. Disunity and conflict amongst political units seems to be the only truth in Germany at the time before war. I agree with you that this disunity and failures at rational compromises for the benefit of the county may have been the predecessors for German involvement in war. While disunity may have caused the start of war, it seems that the outcome of war brought about a limited since of unity amongst the people... reliance amongst themselves rather than the government.
ReplyDeleteYou make good points, but I don't really know about disunity being the cause of the war. I am more inclined to buy into the idea that many thought Germany had to become an international power. This was particularly true of Bethmann-Holweg who I basically have come to the conclusion was extremely weak on foreign policy and later did a very poor job of managing the war effort.
ReplyDeleteThere were long term reasons in terms of interest groups, and policial culture but the political leadership at the beginning of the war was awful.
I agree that by blaming "Germany" or "Britain" for the war, it seems to imply a unity on the issue that often did not exist. I like how you link the war to the problems of disunity within Germany and the notion of war as a solution.
ReplyDelete