Oliver Stone's Secret History Of America
I'm not sure that this is quite the argument you appear to think it is. There is a pretty broad consensus across the historiography that responsibility for the war lies, amongst states, chiefly with Wilhemine Germany. Moreover, the idea that no-one 'seems to know', given the nature of historical causation, is somewhat beside the point.
Germany's actions - chiefly those of Bethmann, and then Moltke & co - in spurring forward Berchtold & the Dual Monarchy (and overriding the internal opposition from Tisza) in the immediate build up to the outbreak of war are pretty clear, as are the consequences. The risk of a general European conflict is consciously accepted by the German military élite - they had been discussing as early as 1912 the desirability of an early, 'preventative' war against Russian & France before the military situation worsened, and the conflict looming in 1914 was, they hoped, the perfect opportunity to do this. The potential outcomes (AH being strengthened, Russia backing down, Russia and France being divided, reconciliation between Germany and Russia, and general war) are all deemed as acceptable.
It's important to recognise that a great deal of the arguments regarding, particularly, the culpability of Britain and France, are almost total canards. They were dreamed up in the aftermath of Versailles, when, to show that Versailles as a treaty was unjust (for numerous reasons) Clause 231, specifically, was targetted. None of them really stand up to prolonged scrutiny, and that includes more recent attempts to shift the blame westwards, such as Niall Ferguson's 1998 effort; seldom has a (British) historian so comprehensively missed the point. (Of course, it was British intervention that escalates the conflict from a European to a global level, and possibly prevents the Germans from winning in 1914-6, but that is a slightly different issue).
I go out with a first world war historian, and I can say with some sort of authority that no-one working in that field seems to know how that war started. Blaming it all on Germany seems very simplistic.
Germany's actions - chiefly those of Bethmann, and then Moltke & co - in spurring forward Berchtold & the Dual Monarchy (and overriding the internal opposition from Tisza) in the immediate build up to the outbreak of war are pretty clear, as are the consequences. The risk of a general European conflict is consciously accepted by the German military élite - they had been discussing as early as 1912 the desirability of an early, 'preventative' war against Russian & France before the military situation worsened, and the conflict looming in 1914 was, they hoped, the perfect opportunity to do this. The potential outcomes (AH being strengthened, Russia backing down, Russia and France being divided, reconciliation between Germany and Russia, and general war) are all deemed as acceptable.
It's important to recognise that a great deal of the arguments regarding, particularly, the culpability of Britain and France, are almost total canards. They were dreamed up in the aftermath of Versailles, when, to show that Versailles as a treaty was unjust (for numerous reasons) Clause 231, specifically, was targetted. None of them really stand up to prolonged scrutiny, and that includes more recent attempts to shift the blame westwards, such as Niall Ferguson's 1998 effort; seldom has a (British) historian so comprehensively missed the point. (Of course, it was British intervention that escalates the conflict from a European to a global level, and possibly prevents the Germans from winning in 1914-6, but that is a slightly different issue).
Comment