![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
In the run up to the 2014 centenary of the First World War, the German public was gripped by a heated debate on the origins of the war. This article explores the nature of this controversy and its role in shaping national commemoration of the Great War. It also draws parallels between the commemorations of the fiftieth anniversary of the outbreak of the war in 1964 and those of 2014. Through a comparison of Germany’s national memories of the war with those in Britain and France, the article also reveals how different and sometimes conflicting national interpretations of the history of the First World War have affected centenary commemoration. Memories of the First World War are nation-specific, constructed and developed over time to suit a particular view of a country’s past. Moreover, they can be instrumental in influencing that country’s future development and relations with its neighbours.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Dr Helen McCartney and Dr David Morgan-Owen for organising the symposium ‘Commemorating the Centenary of the First World War’ at King’s College, London, where the paper which forms the basis of this article was first delivered, and Dr Heather Jones for making available her conference paper ‘The Centenary in France: International, European and Local’ prior to publication.
Notes
1 For more details on this debate, see for example Annika Mombauer, The Origins of the First World War: Controversies and Consensus (London, 2003); Annika Mombauer, ed., ‘The Fischer Controversy 50 Years on’, special issue of the Journal of Contemporary History, 48.2 (April 2013).
2 Fritz Fischer, Griff nach der Weltmacht (Düsseldorf: 1961).
3 Christopher Clark, Die Schlafwandler. Wie Europa in den ersten Weltkrieg zog (Berlin: 2013).
4 Keith Jeffrey, ‘Commemoration in the United Kingdom: A Multitude of Memories’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 3.50 (September 2015), 562–7, 563.
5 Martin Bayer, ‘Commemoration in Germany: Rediscovering history’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 3, 50 (September 2015), 553–61, 556. See also Joan Beaumont, ‘Commemoration in Australia: A Memory Orgy?’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 3.50 (September 2015), 536–44.
6 This equates to $8800 per Australian soldier killed in the war, compared to $109 for a British soldier and $2 for a German. <http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/postcolonial-blog/2015/nov/11/lavish-spending-first-world-war-commemorations-cloak-distasteful-reality>.
7 Quoted in Hans Monath, ‘Die Ausrede der Regierung ist blamabel’, Der Tagesspiegel, 17 January 2014, 19.
8 Hans-Ulrich Wehler, cited in Hans Monath, ‘Historiker fordern historische Gedenkfeier‘, Der Tagesspiegel, 27 January 2014, <http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/erster-weltkrieg-historiker-fordern-deutsche-gedenkfeier/9386860.html>.
9 In Christoph Cornelißen’s assessment, Clark’s strong ‘analytical passages rather contrast with a peculiarly vague assessment of German and Austrian politics during the July Crisis’. Cornelißen, ‘‘Wege ins Unbekannte’. 1914 und die Rückkehr des Ersten Weltkriegs 2014’, in Europa 1914. Wege ins Unbekannte, in Nils Löffelbein, Silke Fehlemann and Christoph Cornelißen (eds.) (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2016), 270–83, 275. See also Arndt Weinrich, ‘Grosser Krieg, grosse Ursachen? Aktuelle Forschungen zu den Ursachen des Ersten Weltkrieges’, Francia 40 (2013), 233–52, 243. For a rebuttal of Clark’s view of Serbia’s role see Marie-Janine Calic, ‘Kriegstreiber Serbien? Die Südslawen und der Erste Weltkrieg: eine Richtigstellung’, Osteuropa, 2.64 (2014), 43–58.
10 Michael Epkenhans, ‘Der Erste Weltkrieg — Jahrestagsgedenken, neue Forschungen und Debatten einhundert Jahre nach seinem Beginn’, Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 63.2 (2015), 135–65, 146.
11 The most recent example of this is Klaus Gietinger and Winfried Wolf who, in their own words, have attempted to put forward ‘good arguments against this dangerous historical revisionism’. With this they want ‘at the same time to make a contribution against the general militarisation and the newly emerging danger of a great war’. Der Seelentröster. Wie Christopher Clark die Deutschen von der Schuld am I. Weltkrieg erlöst (Stuttgart: 2017), 2.
12 Cora Stephan, ‘Die ewigen Schuldgefühle der Deutschen’, cited in Epkenhans, ‘Der Erste Weltkrieg’, p. 149.
13 See Volker Ullrich, ‘Nun schlittern sie wieder’, Die Zeit, 24 January 2014. It is important to note that Clark makes it explicit he had not set out to prove Fischer wrong. As he points out, examining the July Crisis with the assumption that there was ‘a smoking gun … in the hands of every major character … does not mean that we should minimize the belligerence and imperialist paranoia of the Austrian and German policymakers that rightly absorbed the attention of Fritz Fischer and his historiographical allies’. See Christopher Clark, The Sleepwalkers. How Europe went to War in 1914 (New York: 2012), 561. However, as Volker Ullrich’s comments suggest, this is precisely how some have interpreted Clark’s thesis.
14 Among the recent publications which focused attention on the roles of France and Russia in particular, see Stefan Schmidt, Frankreichs Außenpolitik in der Julikrise 1914. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Ausbruchs des Ersten Weltkrieges (Munich: 2009) and Sean McMeekin, The Russian Origins of the First World War (Cambridge, MA: 2012).
15 Epkenhans, ‘Der Erste Weltkrieg’, 140; Konrad Canis, Der Weg in den Abgrund (Paderborn: 2001), 684.
16 Epkenhans, ‘Der Erste Weltkrieg’, 140.
17 Cornelißen, ‘“Wege ins Unbekannte”’, 276.
18 Publications on the First World War found astonishingly large audiences: Florian Illies’s 1913 sold approximately 400,000 copies in 2013 and Münkler had sold 30,000 by January 2014; at that point Clark had already sold 160,000 copies in Germany alone (Schlafwandler was published in September 2013), with sales figures much larger by the time of the centenary (and in excess of 300,000 by March 2015). Figures for January 2014 taken from Jeevan Vasagar, ‘Bestseller List Reveals Desire to Reassess Great War’, Financial Times, 17 January 2014: <http://www.ft.com/content/5fdf9fba-7f57-11e3-b6a7-00144feabdc0>. Figure for March 2015 from Martin Bayer, ‘Commemoration in Germany’, 554.
19 Cited in Epkenhans, ‘Der Erste Weltkrieg’, 148.
20 On this point, also Christoph Cornelißen, ‘“Oh! What a Lovely War!” Zum Forschungsertrag und zu den Tendenzen ausgewählter Neuerscheinungen über den Ersten Weltkrieg’, Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, 5/6, 65 (2014), 269–83, 271.
21 <http://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/krim/ukraine-und-die-krim-ist-die-krise-genauso-brisant-wie-1914-34971036.bild.html> [accessed March 30, 2017].
22 See, for example, Jörg Friedrich’s interview of August 30, 2014: <http://www.salzburg.com/nachrichten/spezial/1914/sn/artikel/historiker-folgen-des-ersten-weltkriegs-sind-noch-spuerbar-119156/> [accessed March 30, 2017].
23 The fact that many historians refer to Gavrilo Princip and his associates as ‘terrorists’ has itself caused controversy, particularly among Serbian commentators who consider Princip a ‘freedom fighter’ and object to the negative connotations associated with labelling their national hero a terrorist. Despite his international largely negative press, in the centenary year a memorial was erected in Belgrad celebrating Princip. For more detail on this see, for example, Annika Mombauer, ‘Guilt or Responsibility? The Hundred-Year Debate on the Origins of World War I’, Central European History, 4.48 (December 2015), 541–64, 548ff.
24 Clark, Sleepwalkers, xxvii.
25 For example: Maren Ballerstedt et al., eds., Magdeburg im Ersten Weltkrieg 1914–1918. Eine Großstadt an der Heimatfront (Halle: 2014); Karl Boland et al., eds., Der Erste Weltkrieg und Mönchengladbach (Mönchengladbach: 2014); Martin Krauß et al., eds., ‘Heimatfront’ — Der Erste Weltkrieg und seine Folgen im Rhein-Neckar-Raum (1914–1924) (Ubstadt-Weiher: 2014); Daniel Kuhn, ed., Als der Krieg vor der Haustür stand. Der Erste Weltkrieg in Baden und Württemberg (Tübingen: 2014); Daniel Schmidt, ed., ‘Bin noch gesund und munter’. Gelsenkirchener Feldpost aus dem Großen Krieg 1914–1918 (Essen: 2014); Lars U. Scholl, ed., Bremen und der Erste Weltkrieg. Kriegsalltag in der Hansestadt (Bremen: 2014); Thomas Schwark, Heimatfront Hannover. Kriegsalltag 1914–1918 (Hannover: 2014); Volker Standt, Köln im Ersten Weltkrieg. Veränderungen in der Stadt und des Lebens der Bürger 1914–1918 (Göttingen: 2014); Michael Hermann und Paul Weßels, eds., Ostfriesland im Ersten Weltkrieg (Aurich: 2014).
26 <http://www.europeana1914-1918.eu/en>. On the emergence of public history see also Cornelißen, ‘“Wege ins Unbekannte”. 1914 und die Rückkehr des Ersten Weltkriegs 2014’, 270.
28 For details on this project see, for example, Oliver Janz, ‘1914–1918 online. Ein globales Projekt zu einem globalen Krieg’, Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, 5/6 (2014), 369–79.
29 For further details on digital projects for the centenary and beyond, see Alessandra Sorbello Staub, ‘Der Große Krieg. Netzangebote zum Gedenkjahr 2014’, Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, 5/6 (2014), 380–1.
30 100 Jahre Erster Weltkrieg — Portal des Bundesarchivs, http://ersterweltkrieg.bundesarchiv.de/. For a detailed discussion of some of the media offerings on the First World War see, for example, Christoph Cornelißen, ‘Oh! What a Lovely War!’, 270–1, and Staub, ‘Der Große Krieg’, passim.
32 <http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/DE/AAmt/PolitischesArchiv/Dokument_des_Monats/140613_Pol.Archiv.html>.
33 For details on exhibitions at federal level, see Martin Bayer, ‘Commemoration in Germany’, 556–7.
34 Martin Bayer, ‘Commemoration in Germany’, 557.
35 There was a similar emphasis on the European angle in France, albeit for different reasons. Here, arguments over the role of French soldiers (coerced to fight by the French state, or taking up the fight as part of their duties as Republican citizens?) have made it necessary to transfer commemoration to a local or a larger, European level, rather than focusing on the national. See Heather Jones, ‘The Centenary in France: International, European and Local’, unpublished conference paper given at King's College London, 12 January 2017.
36 Norbert Lammer’s speech in the German Bundestag, 3 July 2014 <http://www.bundestag.de/parlament/praesidium/reden/2014/001/286046>. See also Epkenhans, ‘Der Erste Weltkrieg’, 142.
39 On this point see also Cornelißen, ‘“Wege ins Unbekannte”’, 281.
40 Epkenhans, ‘Der Erste Weltkrieg’, 135.
41 Figures from the Forsa poll cited in Jeevan Vasagar, ‘Bestseller List’.
42 ‘One is no longer enmeshed in cultural and social surroundings that demand that the historian not only explain how the catastrophe could happen, but also to defend the nation from the accusation that its “aggression” had caused the death of 10 million, as the Treaty of Versailles had wanted to decree.’ Krumeich, July 1914, 10. Krumeich also suggested — erroneously — that the origins of the war no longer ‘hit a raw nerve’ in Germany. See Jeevan Vasagar, ‘Bestseller List’.
43 See, for example, the online review, dated 16 November 2016, of ‘Kreisleriana’ on Amazon.de: ‘As a Brit [sic] Clark is Certainly not Biased […]’. <http://www.amazon.de/product-reviews/3421043590/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=recent> [accessed 31 March 2017]; a similar view expressed by ‘Wolfgang Peter’, 27 March 2013: ‘A German would not have been allowed to write such a book — it would have been defamed as an attempt at an apology. Clark allows us to breathe freely’. <http://www.amazon.de/product-reviews/3421043590/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_paging_btm_20?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=recent&pageNumber=20> [accessed 31 March 2017].
44 Stig Förster, ‘Balsam auf die Seele selbstbewusster gewordener Bildungsbürger’, L.I.S.A. Wissenschaftsportal, 12 December 2013 (<http://goo.gl/cqiKe2>).
45 For an interesting comparison between five combatant nations’ centenary commemorations see Joan Beaumont, ‘The Politics of Memory: Commemorating the Centenary of the First World War’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 3.50 (September 2015), 529–35.
46 For details on this see, for example, Heather Jones, ‘The Centenary in France: International, European and Local’, unpublished conference paper given at King’s College London, 12 January 2017; Romain Fathi, ‘French Commemoration: The Centenary Effect and the (re)Discovery of 14–18’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 50.3 (2015), 545–52.
47 In the run up to the centenary, the British Government found itself in a difficult position planning the commemoration for a war whose causes mattered to the British narrative of the conflict, while being conscious not to offend the Germans.
48 Max Hastings argued against futility in the BBC TV programme ‘The Necessary War’, which aired on 25 February 2014. It was up against another BBC programme presented by Niall Ferguson, scheduled for screening a week later, titled ‘The Wrong War’, in which he advanced his argument that war was unnecessary for Britain and that the sacrifices its citizens made had been pointless.
49 For more details on the planning for the Centenary in Britain, see for example Keith Jeffrey, ‘Commemoration in the United Kingdom’.
50 Romain Fathi, ‘French Commemoration’, 546.
51 Ibid.
![Supercharge Your Next Research Paper: Research and write your next paper with Jenni AI.]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/112444/Skyscraper-humanities.png"})