H-German Forum -- First World War -- Afflerbach (December 2014)

H-German ANN: H-German Forum -- First World War -- Afflerbach (December 2014)

Discussion published by Laura Hilton on Tuesday, December 9, 2014

H-GERMAN Forum: The Outbreak of the First World War Holger Afflerbach, University of Leeds

The First World War has garnered significant attention in the last decade. It is not a neglected field. In normal years, a constant stream of research is published on all conceivable aspects of the subject. Now, around the centenary of 2014, this stream has become a veritable flood, and new books have appeared by the dozens. Authors and publishers did not wait for the centenary of the outbreak of the war; neither did they limit themselves on only the July crisis. The boom started in 2012 and created a real avalanche of paper. The Special Page on the First World War of the Frankfurter Rundschau alone lists 26 new titles with approximately 17,000 printed pages and these are solely German books or books available in German translation.[1] I expect that the process of a centenary commemoration, which caused this wave of publications, will go on, albeit in changing intensity, until 2018/19 when it will reach the centenary of the end of the war and the peace settlements. Only then will it go back to “normal” research and writing activity.

I am also writing a book on the First World War and, therefore, I am a potential contributor to this mountain of paper, as well as a consumer of all these new books. Therefore, I accepted the kind invitation by H-German to answer the question regarding how I think these publications will influence our understanding of the July crisis and the First World War, and how the debate will continue from here on.

Let me first ask: Is there a debate? The answer to this question is difficult. It is surely not a debate comparable in intensity with the Fischer controversy which started in 1961 and kept historians engaged for at least two decades. [2] This debate centered on the question of German responsibility for the First World War and it was probably the most intense and longest debate in the history of post 1945 German historiography. However, a discussion of this type simply is not taking place right now. Maybe one of the reasons is that the First World War is now, much more than in the 1960s, “history.” The last veterans died years ago, the war is no longer “contemporary history,” and, therefore, no longer a field of personal passions and emotions. Nevertheless, we see the influence of our own times in the most popular, albeit not hotly debated argument in the centenary production, that of German “normality.”

If this is a trend, then there is a second one occurring. The book by Fritz Fischer had a strong thesis. The majority of the books that I discuss here have much less so. Most of them are not, or at least are much less, “thesis driven” than Fischer’s book. A catchy thesis normally simplifies things and, therefore, provokes discussion. The centenary production instead offers books which are at a high scholarly level, and they often offer a very detailed and well-read synthesis of the enormous body of existing research on the First World War. A synthesis is, of course, necessary and extremely useful. If well done, it deserves our admiration, but it cannot really ignite discussions like a thesis-driven book does, by provoking opposition.

A third trend is the parallelism of the actual publications. The books that have appeared since 2012 were written – or have been ordered by publishers – with the centenary in mind. The argument of being on the market “on time” meant that they were produced at roughly the same time. Therefore, most of them cannot relate or respond to each other. They relate to and discuss the existing literature. Given that they are parallel, this makes a debate, an interrelation, difficult.

These reasons may substantiate my impression that there is, right now no “real” debate concerning the outbreak and the history of the First World War. Nevertheless, will any of the new publications lead to a radical new understanding of the July crisis or of the First World War? The July crisis is one of the most debated events in history. Thousands of contemporaries and historians have written about it, and tens of thousands of books and articles published since 1914 discuss every conceivable aspect of the event. The same is true for the First World War itself. It is of course very difficult to change our understanding of a topic that has been debated for a hundred years. I see in most publications over the last two years more of a reevaluation of existing arguments rather than brand new ones. However, there is also distinctive progress. The publications of the last two years make our views on the First World War more complete and more comprehensive and they will change our understanding of the war regarding many details, evaluations and nuances. Therefore, briefly: There is not a debate, but there is a very significant and important increase of encyclopedic knowledge on the war.

Let me begin by discussing some of these works. In terms of impact, surely Christopher Clark’s Sleepwalkers deserves first mention. The book was widely reviewed (also by myself) and, therefore, I will discuss here only some selected arguments.[3] The reasons for its success are manifold. It is an well-written book, a major example of academic rigor and competence. The way Clark approached his topic was surprising and refreshing. He did not follow the Albertini/Tuchman orthodoxy and did not focus on the usual “road to war” -- Germany and Wilhelm II, the refusal to renew the reinsurance treaty, Tirpitz, the German battle fleet, the Anglo-German alienation, and then the way into the abyss.[4] The refreshing and important aspect of Clark’s book is that he does not discuss Imperial Germany’s actions in a European context and how this led to war, but he offers a very broad panoramic view of all European politics. His book starts with King Alexander of Serbia and his wife who were brutally murdered by a bunch of Serbian nationalist officers. After 1903, this group took the Serbian government hostage and made it a kind of rogue state. They forced the government to pursue an aggressive nationalistic policy. They were also responsible for the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand. It was impossible for Austria- Hungary to be a good neighbor with this state. The Habsburg monarchy came off quite lightly, and Clark describes it benevolently.

What do we make out of that? I think that Clark had a very interesting idea to begin his book with the description of the cruel killing of King Alexander and his wife. It was dramaturgically clever and well- chosen to convey his message: The First World War was, in principle, the Third Balkan War and not the Third Morocco Crisis, like some standard interpretations (From Agadir to Armageddon) want us to believe.[5] Of course, this thesis could invite criticism. Indeed, it did. Clark’s book provoked a wave of hostility in Belgrade and very critical reviews by Serbian historians. The international attention Sleepwalkers has produced offers, in my view, a great chance for future research: a thorough investigation of Serbian pre-1914 politics in an international context.

The story of the Balkan roots of the war could be told differently from the way Clark told it, by not

Instead of going into more detail I ask: will Clark’s views permanently alter our understanding of pre-1914 politics? My answer is that they should and they have to, but not in the form in which Clark is presenting them to us. I do not think that future investigations of the roots of the First World War could or should start principally in 1903 in Belgrade. Serbian politics after 1903must play an important and very prominent role in any future analysis of the roads to war. However, our view should not be limited to Belgrade but should include a much broader analysis of the Balkan problems. Clark was not the first who claimed that the First World War was the Third Balkan War. There were writers in the interwar period who did so. Joachim Remak asked this question, and we can trace it back to the era of the First World War itself.[7] Clark’s book will help to recalibrate our attention towards Balkan politics and to where the First World War undoubtedly originated.

The second part of Sleepwalkers deals with European Great Power politics in the decade before 1914. Clark’s extremely informative analysis of European politics shows that German policy was very similar (or occasionally even better) than that of the other great powers of the period. His verdict is that Germany was a sinner among sinners. This explains, in my opinion, the wave of sympathy and attention that the book received in Germany and the skepticism it got in Britain and in the established community of First World War scholars.

In the third and last part of his book, Clark deals in detail with the July crisis itself. These chapters are excellently written and original, although some historians argue that Germany’s diplomacy is treated too benevolently and Sir Edward Grey too harshly. We can say that Clark, in his attempt to counterbalance the anti-German bias of existing scholarship, leaned, maybe a nuance too strongly, towards the other side.

Now the question: What will survive in the long run? Quite a lot, I think. Clark’s description of the July crisis, excellently written and with many new details, will be the platform, together with other canonical books like Albertini, for future research on the topic.[8] But the most important point is, in my view, a different one. Clark offers a particularly convincing argument in the middle part of his volume, in which he describes European great power politics without special focus on Germany. This broadening of our views is a sound conclusion of the research of the last ten to fifteen years and will be the point of departure for future research. The previous, one-sided focus on Berlin has to be abandoned and substituted with a much broader and much more comprehensive perspective.

I conclude that Clark’s Sleepwalkers is the most popular work of the centenary production, and it will change our research perspective regarding some central questions. Here we have to link Clark’s research directly to some of the newer publications dealing with the outbreak of the First World War, like Stefan Schmidt’s analysis on France or Sean McMeekin’s on Russia, [10] which add very important arguments to the main thesis (giving up a focus too centered on Berlin) by highlighting elements of French and Russian responsibilities and, therefore, helping to broaden our understanding.[9]

In 2013, Thomas Otte published his book on the July Crisis, a nuanced and balanced account, going back to the primary sources.[11] It is, in a good sense of the word, a classical piece of diplomatic history, a well-written and careful account of the July crisis that will also be the starting point for future research. Gerd Krumeich offers something similar focusing only on the German side and clarifying some issues like the attitude of Bethmann Hollweg towards the “Halt in Belgrade.”[12] Margaret MacMillan’s The War that Ended Peaceis an informative, well written, and colorful illustration of the July crisis.[13] The able narrative offers a number of interesting vignettes. However, the book is far from being a revolutionary new interpretation of the outbreak of the war.

The counterpoint to all of this is Annika Mombauer’ bookJulikrise .[14] She offers in her readable little volume on the July Crisis a classic interpretation of war responsibilities with a special focus on Germany, therefore, presenting herself as the intellectual heir of Fritz Fischer and John Röhl. She also published a very useful edition of sources which may replace the aging collection by Immanuel Geiss.[15] I want to mention that John Röhl’s biography on Wilhelm II, in which he outlines the Fischer-Röhl approach and that has a very strong emphasis on the Imperial government’s responsibility for war, has now been completed. The three massive volumes are also available in an English translation, [16] and Röhl has written a short 130 page volume in German summarizing his findings.[17] Also, Max Hastings fights against the tide. His book Catastrophe is directed towards a greater audience and offers a fierce argument as to why it was necessary for Britain to go to war in 1914.[18]

I want also like to comment on some of the books, which cover the First World War itself, not only its outbreak. Jay Winter edited the three-volume Cambridge History of the First World War.[19] It is an admirable collection, offering articles on a large number of questions, be it military and political events or social and cultural history. These books offer a wealth of information and the articles, written by leading specialists, are state-of-the-art. This, for years to come, will be an indispensable tool for all future research on the First World War. Oliver Janz, who is also the main editor of the new online-encyclopedia of the First World War [20] (which went online in October 2014), published a useful and comparatively short history of the First World War, putting much emphasis on its global character. It is a readable and careful account, albeit occasionally a bit like a textbook.[21] Jörn Leonhard’s book Die Büchse der Pandora offers a global overview on the entire war and tries to structure the enormous topic.[22] It is an interesting book, offering a summary of an admirably vast reading. The late Hans Ulrich Wehler praised it as coming close to a histoire“ totale” of the First World War. I tend to disagree. Despite its size (more than 1,150 pages), it is far from being a comprehensive history of the First World War. It may sound strange but it is an interesting essay, one of epic proportions. It often uses interesting quotations by intellectuals or other contemporaries to comment on various events. Occasionally, however, this procedure implies, because of its structure, a certain lack of analysis of political decision-making processes. For example, the paragraph on the declaration of unlimited submarine warfare – the event which decided the outcome of the war – is covered in only one paragraph and summarizes the reasons for this decision not only too briefly, but also in a misleading way.

Leonhards’s book, I repeat, is a good book, indeed. It has something in common with all of the other German publications on the First World War centenary. They are all big essays that do not try to evaluate all of the existing scholarship on the problems they deal with. They remain, quite pragmatically, somewhere in between the surface and the ground. That is true also for the following

Citation: Laura Hilton. ANN: H-German Forum -- First World War -- Afflerbach (December 2014). H-German. 12-09-2014. https://networks.h-net.org/node/35008/discussions/55018/ann-h-german-forum-first-world-war-afflerbach-december-2014 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. 4 H-German titles. Jörg Friedrich’s 14/18. Der Weg nach Versailles offers a history of the First World War in his highly individualistic style. [23] Like his book Der Brand, it is a highly emotional book which is full of dry and bitter sarcasm.[24] He is not afraid to deal with both Allied and German war crimes. In his comparison, he states that the Germans were not worse than the Allies were. He offers an interesting and stimulating wealth of information, especially on military events in all theatres of war, including the ones less well covered than the Western Front. But it is not state-of-the-art in terms of scholarship. Herfried Münkler’s Der Große Krieg. Die Welt 1914-1918 also offers a history mainly of Germany (despite the title which promises “the world”), basing his readable book on existing literature.[25]

The comments on the last books may appear like they are unfair. Is it possible to write histories of the war which offer a comprehensive view about the problems and existing scholarship? I think it is, albeit difficult, of course. British historians David Stevenson and Hew Strachan proved it in their histories of the war. Their books are nearly comprehensive in their evaluation of existing scholarship.[26] David Stevenson’s last book, With our Backs to the Wall, appeared in 2012 and deals with events in 1918. The book deserves high praise for its rigor and comprehensive evaluation of existing scholarship, as well as for its sober and sound judgment, and will be for the time being, the central point of reference for all histories on the last year of the war.[27] At a similar level of very high standards of scholarship is Alexander Watson’sRing of Steel, on the Central Powers 1914-1918.[28] Using an amazing body of primary and secondary literature and archival material, Watson is innovative in dealing with Germany and Austria during the Great War. His book is mainly a comprehensive social history. It will be the starting point for future research on these topics, being particularly strong on Eastern Central Europe, especially Poland, and occupation politics.

Here I would also like to mention Manfried Rauchensteiner’s new book on Austria-Hungary and the First World War Der Erste Weltkrieg und das Ende der Habsburgermonarchie. It is a heavily reworked version of his book Der Tod des Doppeladlers, brought up-to-date by including the latest research (and gaining considerably in size).[29] It is still the same book, but massively enlarged. It is, like the original version, also an easy and good read.[30] I will finish this short overview with mentioning the highly innovative biography by Lothar Machtan of the last German chancellor, Prinz Max von Baden.[31] It is a very well-written book, which offers a new and very critical look at the Prince as well as the events around the German breakdown in 1918. He deals with the way von Baden handled the question of Wilhelm’s abdication, and he states that the prince missed political opportunities to save the monarchy.

The very last book to mention here is Adam Tooze’s The Deluge.[32] Tooze returns here to one of the themes of his previous book Wages of Destruction, in which he interprets the Second World War as a hopeless and chaotic attempt by Nazi Germany to cope with the economic potential of the United States, namely, the role of the USA [33] InThe Deluge, he describes how the United States and President Wilson entered the First World War. He points out Wilson’s goal in securing US global dominance and shows the reasons that the peace settlements failed. The book is global in its approach and not as focused asWages of Destruction, but it is still very inspiring, asking big questions and giving plenty of original thoughts and insights. Tooze invites us to re-evaluate the political heritage of the First World War.

Let me conclude with some very general observations on the centenary production. The debate in

Germany is dominated, as always, by the question of guilt and responsibility. The big success of Christopher Clark’s Sleepwalkers can be partially explained by his appeal to German desire to close the guilt-debate on favorable terms. The debate in Great Britain is dominated by the question of “futility.” Was it necessary to enter the war? Niall Ferguson argued that it was not and repeated his statements on British television in 2014.[34] However, Max Hastings argues inCatastrophe that it was necessary for Britain to enter the war to preserve the balance of power and democratic standards and international law.

Generally, the British approach is still remarkably different from the German one. Hew Strachan may serve as an example. He warned in 2013 that the centenary might become a quite boring enterprise: “The centenary of the First World War must not be Remembrance Sunday writ large. … If it simply reworks the familiar themes of remembrance, it will be repetitive, sterile and possibly even boring. …We also need to recognise the degree to which this war shaped our thinking about all wars: our notions of when it is right to fight and when not, of warfare as simultaneously necessary and wasteful.”[35] Moreover, there is a difference. German historians would easily agree that war is wasteful; but would they equally agree that it may be “necessary”? This kind of question will continue to keep our interest in the First World War, or indeed, in all wars, alive.

Notes

[1] On the website of the Frankfurter Rundschau we can find the following new publications (to give ONLY the German example): http://www.fr-online.de/der-erste-weltkrieg/1477454,1477454.html: 1. Basic literature: Volker Berghahn, Der Erste Weltkrieg. C.H. Beck Wissen 2012, mit aktualisiertem Prolog; 126 S: Christopher Clark, Die Schlafwandler. Wie Europa in den Ersten Weltkrieg zog. Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 895 S., Adam Hochschild,Der Große Krieg. Der Untergang des alten Europa im Ersten Weltkrieg. Verlag Klett-Cotta, 528 S.; Gerhard Henke-Bockschatz,Der Erste Weltkrieg. Eine kurze Geschichte. Reclam Verlag, 300 S.; Gerhard Hirschfeld, Gerd Krumeich, Deutschland im Ersten Weltkrieg. S. Fischer Verlag, 336 S; Oliver Janz, Der große Krieg. Campus Verlag, 415 S.; Gerhard Jelinek, Schöne Tage 1914. Vom Neujahrstag bis zum Ausbruch des Ersten Weltkriegs. Almathea Verlag, 318 S.; Gerd Krumeich,Juli 1914. Eine Bilanz. Mit 50 Schlüsseldokumenten zum Kriegsausbruch. Ferdinand Schöningh Verlag 362 S.; Jörn Leonhard, Die Büchse der Pandora. Geschichte des Ersten Weltkriegs. C.H. Beck Verlag, 1158 S.; Sean McMeekin, Juli 1914. Der Countdown in den Krieg. Europa Verlag Berlin, 558 S.; Annika Mombauer,Die Julikrise. Euro-pas Weg in den Ersten Weltkrieg. C.H. Beck Wissen 2825, 128 S.; Herfried Münkler, Der Große Krieg. Die Welt 1914 – 1918. Rowohlt Verlag, Berlin 2013, 924 S. Ernst Piper, Nacht über Europa. Kulturgeschichte des Ersten Weltkriegs. Propyläen Verlag 2013, 587 S.; Matthias Steinbach (Hg.), Mobilmachung 1914. Ein literarisches Echolot. Reclam Taschenbuch 20287, 288 S.; Hew Strachan, Der Erste Weltkrieg. Goldmann Taschenbuch 15397, 448 S., 12,99 Euro. 2. Recommended: Wladimir Aichelburg, Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand. Verlag Berger, Wien 2014. 3268 Seiten; Pat Barker, Tobys Zimmer. Aus dem Englischen von Miriam Mandelkow. Dörlemann Verlag 2014. 400 Seiten; Klaus Böhme (Hg.), Aufrufe und Reden deutscher Professoren im Ersten Weltkrieg. Reclam Verlag, Stuttgart 2014. 253 S.; Geert Buelens, Europas Dichter und der Erste Weltkrieg. Aus dem Niederländischen von Waltraut Hüsmert. Suhrkamp 2014. 459 Seiten; Wolfram Dornik, Des Kaisers Falke. Wirken und Nach-Wirken von Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf. Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck, Wien und Bozen 2013. 279 Seiten; Jean Echenoz, 14. Roman. Aus dem Französischen von Hinrich Schmidt-Henkel. Hanser Berlin Verlag 2014. 126 S.;Ernst Jünger, In Stahlgewittern.

Historisch-kritische Ausgabe. 2 Bd..Hg. v. Helmuth Kiesel. Klett-Cotta Verlag 2013; 1245 S.;Horst Lauinger (Hrsg.), Über den Feldern. Der Erste Weltkrieg in großen Erzählungen. Manesse 2014, 784 S.; Lothar Machtan, Prinz Max von Baden. Der letzte Kanzler des Kaisers. Eine Biographie. Suhrkamp, Berlin 2013. 668 S.; Gregor Mayer, Verschwörung in Sarajevo. Triumph und Tod des Attentäters Gavrilo Princip. Residenz Verlag, 2014. 159 S.; Avi Primor, Süß und ehrenvoll. Roman. Quadriga, Köln 2013. 384 Seiten, 19,99 Euro.

[2] Fritz Fischer, Griff nach der Weltmacht. Die Kriegszielpolitik des kaiserlichen Deutschland 1914-1918, Düsseldorf, 1961; Idem, Krieg der Illusionen. Die deutsche Politik 1911-1914, Düsseldorf. 1969; idem, Der Erste Weltkrieg und das deutsche Geschichtsbild. Beiträge zur Bewältigung eines Tabus, Düsseldorf, 1977. See also the articles on Fischer, his books and the controversy in the articles published in the Journal of Contemporary History¸Volume XLVIII, Issue 2, 2013.

[3] Christopher Clark, The Sleepwalkers. How Europe went to War in 1914, London, 2012. My own review is online: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-88754330.html.

[4] Luigi Albertini, The Origins of the War of 1914, 3 vols., Oxford, 1953 [original in Italian, 1942-1943]; Barbara Tuchman, The Guns of August, New York, 1962.

[5] Geoffrey Barraclough, From Agadir to Armageddon : Anatomy of a Crisis, New York, 1982; see also Wolfgang J. Mommsen, “Der Topos vom unvermeidlichen Krieg. Außenpolitik und öffentliche Meinung im Deutschen Reich im letzten Jahrzehnt vor 1914.” In: Jost Dülffer, Karl Holl (Hrsg.), Bereit zum Krieg. Kriegsmentalität im wilhelminischen Deutschland 1890-1914, Göttingen ,1986, pp.194-224.

[6] I mean that the Bosnian Annexation Crisis was a blueprint for Germany’s actions in the summer of 1914, see: Holger Afflerbach, “Nibelungentreue? Germany and the Bosnian Annexation Crisis,” in: Catherine Horel (ed.), 1908. La Crise de Bosnie dans le Contexte Européen, Cent Ans Après, Paris, 2011.

[7] Joachim Remak, 1914 -The Third Balkan War: Origins Reconsidered, in: The Journal of Modern History Vol. 43, No. 3 (September 1971), pp. 353-366.

[8] It already is used for research, as may be proven by books, which came out in 2014, like the 3 volumes by Thomas Otte (see endnote #11) or Alexander Watson (see endnote #28).

[9] Stefan Schmidt, Frankreichs Außenpolitik in der Julikrise 1914. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Ausbruchs des Ersten Weltkrieges, München, 2009.

[10] Sean McMeekin, The Russian Origins of the First World War, Cambridge (MS) 2011; idem, July 1914: Countdown to War, 2013.

[11] Thomas Otte, July Crisis. The World's Descent into War, Summer 1914, Cambridge, 2014.

[12] Gerd Krumeich, Juli 1914. Eine Bilanz. Mit einem Anhang: 50 Schlüsseldokumente zum Kriegsausbruch, Paderborn, 2014.

[13] Margaret MacMillan, The War that ended Peace, The Road to 1914, London, 2013.

[14] Annika Mombauer, Die Julikrise. Europas Weg in den Ersten Weltkrieg, München 2nd ed., 2014.

[15] Annika Mombauer (Ed.), The Origins of the First World War. Diplomatic and Military documents, Manchester, 2013.

[16] John C. G. Röhl, Wilhelm II. Into the Abyss of War and Exile, 1900–1941, translated by CAD; Sheila de Bellaigue and Roy Bridge, Cambridge, 2014. The two previous volumes were Young Wilhelm. The Kaiser's Early Life, 1859–1888, Cambridge, 1999, and Wilhelm II. The Kaiser's Personal Monarchy, 1888–1900, translated by Sheila de Bellaigue, Cambridge, 2004.

[17] John Roehl, Wilhelm II, Munich, 2013.

[18] Max Hastings, Catastrophe 1914. Europe Goes to War, London, 2013.

[19] Jay Winter (ed.), The Cambridge History of the First World War, 3 vols., Cambridge, 2014.

[20] http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/home/

[21] Oliver Janz, 14. Der große Krieg, Frankfurt a.M., 2013.

[22] Jörn Leonhard, Die Büchse der Pandora. Geschichte des Ersten Weltkrieges, München, 2014.

[23] Jörg Friedrich, 14/18. Der Weg nach Versailles, Berlin, 2014.

[24] Jörg Friedrich, Der Brand, Deutschland im Bombenkrieg 1940–1945,Munich, 2002 (English translation: The Fire: The Bombing of Germany, 1940–1945, translated by Allison Brown, New York, 2006.

[25] Herfried Münkler, Der Große Krieg. Die Welt 1914-1918, Berlin, 2013.

[26] Hew Strachan, The First World War. Vol. 1: To Arms, Oxford, 2001; David Stevenson, Cataclysm. The First World War as Political Tragedy, New York, 2004.

[27] David Stevenson, With our backs to the wall. Victory and defeat in 1918, London, 2011.

[28] Alexander Watson, Ring of Steel. Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I, London, 2014.

[29] Manfried Rauchensteiner, Der Tod des Doppeladlers. Österreich-Ungarn und der Erste Weltkrieg, 2nd ed., Graz, 1994.

[30] Manfried Rauchensteiner, Der Erste Weltkrieg und das Ende der Habsburgermonarchie 1914-1918, Wien/Köln/Weimar, 2013.

[31] Lothar Machtan, Prinz Max von Baden Der letzte Kanzler des Kaisers. Eine Biographie, Berlin, 2013.

[32] Adam Tooze, The Deluge. The Great War, America and the remaking of the Global Order, 1916-1931, New York, 2014.

[33] Adam Tooze, Wages of Destruction. The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy, London, 2006.

[34] Niall Ferguson, The Pity of War, London, 1999.

[35] The Telegraph, 11 January 2013.