The limits of choice: July 1914 reconsidered

The discussion of the outbreak of World War I was a classic historical debate. It raised most historical questions. Not only academics but also politicians, journalists, and the educated public became involved. A considerable number of scholars made reputations debating it. It was probably the most burning historical question for the interwar generation and produced a vast quantity of original documents and secondary literature. But the great effort produced little agreement. This paradox seemed to make nonsense of history: the more men knew, the less they agreed. The debate seemed to demonstrate that history is nothing more than national propaganda, subjective prejudice, or intellectual exercise. This conclusion was partially justified since many participants sought immediate political objectives rather than historical objectivity. Indeed it was precisely those political implications of the debate, which attracted public attention, that virtually insured against objectivity. In this sense the debate tells us more about the interwar period than the prewar period. However much the participants genuinely sought to explain the prewar period, their disagreement was due largely to questions of interpretation, since the facts could be generally agreed upon after publication of the official documents. The debate is therefore understandable only if these interpretations are isolated. Competing Interpretations of the Crisis