Christopher Clark Research Paper

838 Words4 Pages

One Historian named Christopher Clark, explains his modern opinion on the first war. He believes that there is no ultimate person or country to blame. Europe was at peace originally, it was an extremely calm time and war was less likely than more in 1914. The repeated crises deadened the effect of war. World War One is the prevail catastrophe of the 20th century. However, it was good for some countries e.g., Baltic States and Poland which out them on the map. It was a mythic moment for NZ history and NZ’s first major global war. It was the first war to use planes. It caused the death of 10-13 million men and 21 million seriously wounded men. It is the disaster or all world disasters that sprang. It leads to Nazism and the Holocaust in Germany …show more content…

25,000 English books written on the First World War. It is not that we know too little it is that we know too much. It was Europe’s ‘last summer’ and the subject is still fresh. He relates the crisis in June 28 to 911 as one crisis can lead to such a long horrific war, most people believed that the 911 crisis would lead to World War III. Clark States, "Should Germany really be blamed for the First World War, or did European nations simply sleepwalk into it?” He stated that the ‘why’ questions lead us to blame and lead to the responsibility of who started the war. He says we should be asking the question ‘how’ the war started rather than ‘why’ the war started. It is hard to use the blame game when there was such chaotic quality of decision-making at the time. So many people were determining foreign policy even ambassadors were making decisions. In addition, Clark believes, decisions made in many places in a very complex environment lead to this war. You cannot pin it on one person or country. Each country is playing the blame game even before the …show more content…

He gives a very controversial theory and uncommon, as he blames his own Country for the cause of not a European, but a world war, as he says, the first war, was a great war for civilisation. It was Britain’s deadliest war. Britain not only destroyed their countries of their Empire. Violence was bad for centuries, but from the 17th-18th centuries violence began decreasing. Britain had not fought a European war for a century since the Crimean war. People had too much to lose going to war. But Peace hit an iceberg in 1914. Dissolution was shattered and there became industrialised slaughter. It was far more destructive than any previous conflict. There were bigger armies and stronger weapons. 10% of men between the ages of 15-49 were killed in 7 countries. Civilisation seemed to have come to an end but how and why? Most people were blinded by the war when it was to break out. People of the UK expected there more likely a civil war in Ireland, and the French public was more focused on the trial of the French premier’s wife Mme Calliaux, and the German Kaiser was on holiday. In Austria they determined it to be a local war and for Germany to keep Russia out and not support Serbia. Therefore how could a single assassination shake the whole world? It was a war long designed for; therefore it was not an accident. Germany had the strongest anti-militarism in Europe, while France had the

Show More
Open Document