Talk:Historiography of the causes of World War I

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Historiography of the causes of World War I article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

European history High‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Historiography / Balkan / British / European / French / German / Russian & Soviet / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military historiography task force
	Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	German military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	World War I task force

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes

Section size for Historiography of the causes of World War I (20 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	1,623	1,623
1914–the Color books	11,671	11,671
1918–1930s	9,139	9,139
The Fischer thesis	5,320	10,824
Opposition to the Fischer thesis	5,504	5,504
1960s–1990s	5,899	5,899
Post-2000	864	15,797
Europe's Last Summer	1,509	1,509
The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914	4,945	7,973
Reception in Germany	1,487	1,487
Vernon Bogdanor	1,541	1,541
The Russian Origins of the First World War and July 1914	1,468	1,468
The War That Ended Peace	916	916
The Origins of the First World War	1,057	1,057
Other views	2,010	2,010
See also	595	595
Notes	24	24
References	30	30
Bibliography	9,237	9,585
Primary sources	348	348
Total	65,187	65,187

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Serbia#Balkan Wars, World War I and the First Yugoslavia|Serbia]] The anchor (#Balkan Wars, World War I and the First Yugoslavia) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

War Guilt Clause

The claim that the "war guilt clause" of the Treaty of Versailles influenced Allied historians' judgement is unsupported and highly suspect. It contradicts what is written at Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles, which I am more inclined to trust. Frankly, it sounds like German apologetics. 99.249.15.40 (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allied historians during the war made the guilt accusation which was incorporated into the treaty. The majority of Allied historians in 1920s said Germany was guilty (though a minority of "revisionists" was quite active). Donald R. Kelley (2006). Frontiers of History: Historical Inquiry in the Twentieth Century. Yale UP. p. 90. and Hans Wilhelm Gatzke (1980). Germany and the United States, a "special Relationship?". Harvard UP. p. 52.. Rjensen (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard Ritter

I hold no candle for Ritter, but the statement "He was against democracy, blaming it as the cause for the Second World War, and supported authoritarian, totalitarian government" seems to be an assessment or judgement without any referenced source and looks dangerously close to personal opinion. Helvetius (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ritter definitely thought monarchy was better than democracy (at least for Germany), and supported authoritarian government (which he distinguished from totalitarian government), but I don't think he blamed democracy for WWII. In any case, I've removed the whole section with that statement, because when you leave in only the supported material, it can't sustain the claim that he wasn't a disinterested historian. Adding something like "Far from acting like a disinterested historian, Ritter was clearly biased against claims that make Germany look bad because of his patriotism," although probably true, seems to do more to ruin the flow of the prose than it does to provide context. Dingsuntil (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Economic causes with reference to the argued example of the Baghdad Railway

discussion points:

"...a major reason for Western historians to avoid the Baghdad railway when explaining the causes of the war had to do with Lenin's communist victory in 1917. Communism in the 1920s and 1930s became not just another economic option but threat to all aspects of society, particularly in the United States. Marxists had explained all causes for historical actions in economic terms and Lenin's book "Imperialism: the highest stage of Capitalism" came too close to the truth. Western historians, again US in the lead, openly established grants and encouraged economic history only to support capitalism; at the same time they minimized economic causes that could get them blacklisted as "Marxists."

"A related reason for the lack of reference to the railway even today is the Second World War. The Kaiser was not Hitler but explaining such a monumental miscalculated catastrophe as WW1 required painting Germany black in 1914. Hitler was easier and seems to confirm that Germany must have been to blame. The one country where economic history seemed most prepared to accept Marxist causes and British blame was in France, with the Annales school dominating the last half of the 20th Century; but France was also hardest hit by both wars and defending German actions did not come easily --French historians preferred to study other subjects."

--BCameron54 12:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead Section

This article now has a lead section, suggesting that the warning that the article has no lead section can now be removed. Wikipedia best practice is that a third party should agree to this. Since I have added the introduction, can someone review this and approve (or not) the removal of the lead section template warning.Keith Johnston (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate statement?

In the opening section is says: " Those historians such as Fritz Fischer who believe that Germany deliberately planned a European war, once a widespread view, are now in a small minority. " However if you go through the evidence in the rest of the article this is not really supported and the article even contains evidence or suggestions indicating that say most historians currently living lean opposite way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:9852:A489:27C0:68A (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a while since I posted the above. As there is seemingly no-counter argument I will make an edit to the section in question. 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:425:F50D:A318:AD6C (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elsewhere

Pls see here . Ema--or (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]