Understanding the Origins of the First World War

[aeolium]

More significant in the light of anti-imperialist struggles I think is the question as to whether or not the Russian Revolution would have taken place and the Bolsheviks successfully taken power had WWI not taken place. The ramifications of such considerations are enormous: the possibility that without either fascism or a left reformist response to bolshevism in western Europe, and the influence of Keynsianism, the non-fascist Right might have have deflected all opposition from electoral challenge from the 1920s onwards.

I was thinking that without the pressures and turbulence created by Russia's involvement in the Great War, the Russian Revolution would almost certainly not have occurred when it did and in the form it did. After all, the C19 had seen numerous revolutionary movements in Russia come and go, from the Decembrists in 1825 and taking in successful assassinations of the Tsar but without leading to an end to autocratic government. There was strong economic growth in Russia leading up to 1914 and though this was accompanied by stronger political parties, it's quite possible that this would have led to greater constitutional government rather than outright revolution.

As to Keynesianism, the influence of these ideas perhaps had much to do with the collapse of the free-market model with the Great Depression, and we cannot estimate the extent to which that Depression was due to the aftereffects of the war. Certainly it resulted in more collectivist and state-interventionist government programmes being followed, whether in democratic countries like the USA or fascist countries like Germany and Italy. And the second war enforced even greater state-interventionist policies in combatant countries, paving the way for the preference of policies such as nationalisation of key services and utilities over the discredited laissez-faire inter-war policies. Without the Great Depression and the Second World War, Keynes may have been far less influential. And this begs the question of whether the monetarist philosophy being devised by certain Vienna 1900 economists would have been implemented much earlier rather than waiting until Thatcher/Reagan came along.

Too many counterfactuals methinks And then we haven't started with the Middle East, the Balkans, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire...

[Historian]

A bit late in the day perhaps, but still a little time to catch an interesting programme The Great War of Words (part 1 of 2) on Radio 4 (broadcast 4th February 2014). I felt it summarised recent historical debate about propaganda during (and after) the First World War very well. For anyone allergic to Michael Portillo, I should add that the programme included contributions from a wide range of historians as well as the Train Journey Man. One aspect which deserves to be more widely known is that, contrary to the belief of many, Germany was guilty of atrocities in the first months of the war. The programme looked at both documented incidents and fabricated events, as well as the process whereby the latter became a powerful weapon for British and Allied propagandists.

The second (and final) programme is broadcast at just after 09:00 tomorrow. It concentrates on the issue of responsibility for the war and 'War guilt'.

[aeolium]

Thanks, Historian - I'll try and catch up with the first programme. I did hear Portillo some time back give the now commonly heard revisionist account of the justifiable war, defending British imperial interests against the aggressive Germans, unjustly maligned generals etc and I'm glad to have read the Clark book which gives a quite different perspective (British policymakers for instance considering the Russians more of a threat to their imperial interests and the alliance with Russia was designed to minimise that threat). Still, if it's a well-argued debate it should be worth listening to.

[Radio64]

A bit late in the day perhaps, but still a little time to catch an interesting programme The Great War of Words (part 1 of 2) on Radio 4 (broadcast 4th February 2014). ...

Thanks for the tip. The first episode can be downloaded here, as presumably the second one will be too.

[Historian]

Thanks for the tip. The first episode can be downloaded here, as presumably the second one will be too.

Many thanks for bringing that to our attention and making my initial, but rather late, recommendation much more useful.

[Radio64]

Many thanks for bringing that to our attention and making my initial, but rather late, recommendation much more useful.

Never too late my friend.

[aeolium]

I'm afraid I was disappointed by this. Although there were interesting insights into the use of propaganda and the changing historiography of the war, the programmes did seem to be mainly outlets for Portillo's thesis about German war guilt and the justifiability of the war, in which he was ably assisted by his lieutenant Dr Heather Jones of the LSE. In particular, the argument that because inter-war German historians (and politicans like Hitler) sought to exonerate Germany from the burden of war guilt with misrepresentations that was strong evidence of German's responsibility doesn't seem very powerful since all the major powers sought to excuse themselves from responsibility. Christopher Clark's book by contrast illustrates the way in which all these powers were to some extent culpable yet in ways which made sense at the time according to their own perspectives and understanding of their own interests.

So far as part of the BBC's commemorative efforts about the War, we have one TV series which concentrates on the progress of the war from the British experience and a radio series which appears to project a revisionist view of German (and Austro-Hungarian) war guilt - both fronted by non-specialists in the period. It does seem as though, as Simon Jenkins complained a couple of weeks ago, we are to be treated to an indulgent wallow in complacent and self-focussing commemoration. I hope that there will be some wider examination of origins, and programmes that look at the experiences of other countries, but I'm not greatly confident.

[mercia]

an interesting summary of opinions (?)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

I'm fascinated by to what extent bad relations amongst various of Queen Victoria's grandchildren and their in-laws was a contributory factor in the build-up to war - which is what the BBC 'Cousins at war' programmes seemed to suggest.

[aeolium]

an interesting summary of opinions (?)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

I'm with Hirschfeld and McMeekin, perhaps not coincidentally the only two representatives of non-British institutions in this survey: another instance of the BBC's concentration on a British perspective.

[Tevot]

an interesting summary of opinions (?)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

I'm fascinated by to what extent bad relations amongst various of Queen Victoria's grandchildren and their in-laws was a contributory factor in the build-up to war - which is what the BBC 'Cousins at war' programmes seemed to suggest.

Interesting summaries indeed. Certainly the following books are on my wish-list once I can fork out on a kindle. Max Hastings' "Catastrophe..." , Christopher Clark's "The Sleepwalkers" and Margaret MacMillan's "The War that ended Peace".

I'd also recommend "Rites of Spring" by Modris Eksteins (if you can find a cheap copy that is: )

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rites-Spring-Great-Birth-Modern/dp/0395937582

http://www.thompsonwerk.com/2013/01/review-rites-of-spring/

Best Wishes,

Tevot

[aeolium]

Thank you for the Eksteins recommendation, Tevot - I will try and seek it out.

The book by Frank Furedi which is reviewed here also looks interesting as an exploration of the long-term cultural impact of the war.

[aeolium]

Not a book concerning the origins of the conflict, but I thought this retrospective on the Guardian's view in the days leading up to the declaration of war on Germany on August 4 1914 was interesting:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/02/sp-first-world-war-manchester-guardian-uk-neutrality

The day after that declaration, the Guardian editorial from C P Scott included these prophetic words:

“A little more knowledge, a little more time on this side, more patience, and a sounder political principle on the other side would have saved us from the greatest calamity that anyone living has known. It will be a war in which we risk almost everything of which we are proud, and in which we stand to gain nothing.

“Even those who have worked for the war will enter upon it without enthusiasm, and amongst the majority of our countrymen the thought of it has aroused the deepest misgivings and the most poignant regret. Some day we shall all regret it.”

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Has anyone else been listening to the five-minute R4 1914: Day-by-Day: excerpts from diaries, minutes and letters from the men who let it all happen. What's possibly most striking is how unaware thay all were of what was happening and how the War would turn out. A fortnight before hostilities began, the British Prime Minister wrote to his mistress - the Austro/Serbian conflict comes fourth on his list of topics (the "Irish Question" is uppermost, then the weather and the Henley Regatta) where he states quite clearly that there is going to be a cataclysm in Europe; "Thank goodness it won't involve us"! The lack of clarity (at home and abroad) about Britain's attitude is an essential contributor to the outbreak of War.

[jean]

I have just belatedly watched this, and was enthralled.

What did people better-informed than me make of it?

[Roehre]

I have just belatedly watched this, and was enthralled.

What did people better-informed than me make of it?

I thought it very good, well played too.