War guilt question

Note: If you drop translated/copied content anywhere in this article, you must provide proper attribution in the edit summary, per Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Either of these two edit summaries satisfies the requirement:

• Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:FRENCH-ARTICLE-NAME]]; see its history for attribution.
• Content in this edit is copied from the existing Wikipedia article at [[ENGLISH-ARTICLE-NAME]]; see its history for attribution.

[[Category:Use American English from {{subst:May}} 2020]] [[Category:Use dmy dates from {{subst:May}} 2020]]

The war guilt question (Kriegschuldfrage) is the public debate in Germany that was held for the most part during the Weimar Republic, to establish the German share of responsibility in the First World War. Structured in several phases, and largely determined by the impact of the Treaty of Versailles and the attitude of the victorious Allies, this debate also took place in other countries involved in the conflict, such as in France and Great Britain.

The war guilt debate motivated historians such as Hans Delbrück, Wolfgang J. Mommsen, Gerhard Hirschfeld, and Fritz Fischer, but also a much wider circle including intellectuals such as Kurt Tucholsky or Siegfried Jacobsohn, as well as the general public. The Kriegschuldfrage pervaded the history of the Weimar Republic: founded shortly before the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919, Weimar embodied this debate until its demise, which was subsequently taken up as a campaign argument by the National Socialists.

While the war guilt question made it possible to investigate the deep-rooted causes of the First World War, although not without provoking a great deal of controversy, it also made it possible to identify other aspects of the conflict, such as the role of the masses and the question of the Sonderweg. This debate, which obstructed German political progress for many years, also showed that politicians such as Gustav Stresemann were able to confront the war guilt question by advancing the general discussion without compromising German interests.

A century later, debate continues into the 21st century. The main outlines of the debate include: how much diplomatic and political room to maneuver was available; the inevitable consequences of pre-war armament policies; the role of domestic policy and social and economic tensions in the foreign relations of the states involved; the role of public opinion and their experience of war in the face of organized propaganda; the role of economic interests and top military commanders in torpedoing deescalation and peace negotiations; the "Special path" (Sonderweg) theory; and the long-term trends which tend to contextualize the First World War as a condition or preparation for the Second, such as Raymond Aron who views the two world wars as the new Thirty Years' War, a theory reprised by Enzo Traverso in his work.

Weimar Republic

Approaches

• calls for an International tribunal
• Kriegsschuldreferat
• Landsberg project

See also

• 1930s
• Aftermath of World War I
• Areas annexed by Nazi Germany
• Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles
• Causes of World War II
• Centre for the Study of the Causes of the War
• Centre for the Study of the Causes of the War
• Commission of Responsibilities
• Dawes Plan
• Diplomatic history of World War II
• European Civil War
• European interwar economy
• Fourteen Points
• German collective guilt
• German nationalism
• Germany's Aims in the First World War
• Historiography of Germany

• • David L. Hoggan
  • Harry Elmer Barnes
  • Hermann Lutz
  • Max Montgelas
  • Pierre Renouvin
  • Udo Walendy

• Historiography of the causes of World War I
• International relations (1919–1939)
• Interwar period
• Manifesto of the Ninety-Three
• Neville Chamberlain's European Policy
• Paris Peace Conference (1919–1920)
• Paris Peace Conference (1919–1920)n
• Scheidemann cabinet
• Stab-in-the-back myth
• Timeline of events preceding World War II
  • in Asia
  • in Europe
• Treaty of Trianon
• Weimar culture
• World Disarmament Conference
• World War I reparations
• Young Plan

Works cited

• Thoß, Bruno (1994). "Der Erste Weltkrieg als Ereignis und Erlebnis. Paradigmenwechsel in der westdeutschen Weltkriegsforschung seit der Fischer-Kontroverse" [The First World War as event and experience. Paradigm Shift in West German World War Research since the Fischer Controversy]. In Wolfgang Michalka (ed.). Der Erste Weltkrieg: Wirkung, Wahrnehmung, Analyse [The First World War : impact, awareness, analysis]. Piper Series (in German). Munich: Piper. ISBN 978-3-492-11927-6. OCLC 906656746.

• Traverso, Enzo (7 February 2017) [1st pub. Stock (2007)]. Fire and Blood: The European Civil War, 1914-1945. London: Verso. ISBN 978-1-78478-136-1. OCLC 999636811.

Further reading

• Ewald Frie, Das Deutsche Kaiserreich, Darmstadt, 2004
• Jörg Richter, Kriegsschuld und Nationalstolz. Politik zwischen Mythos und Realität, Katzmann, 2003
• Mombauer, Annika. "Guilt or Responsibility? The Hundred-Year Debate on the Origins of World War I." Central European History 48.4 (2015): 541-564.
• Annika Mombauer (2016). "Germany and the Origins of the First World War". In Matthew Jefferies (ed.). The Ashgate Research Companion to Imperial Germany. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781317043218.
• Karl Jaspers (2009). "The German Questions". The Question of German Guilt. ISBN 9780823220632.
• Karl Max Lichnowsky (Fürst von); Gottlieb von Jagow (2008) [1918]. The Guilt of Germany for the War of German Aggression : Prince Karl Lichnowsky's Memorandum; Being the Story of His Ambassadorship at London from 1912 to August, 1914, Together with Foreign Minister Von Jagow's Reply. F.P. Putnam (original), University of Wisconsin - Madison (digital).