| Abstract [eng] |
The dissertation aims to reveal the prevailing interpretations, compromises, and disagreements regarding the guilt and responsibility of the First World War as they appear in contemporary 21st-century historiography published in English, German, and French. The study begins with a review of historiographical research from the onset of the Fischer controversy in 1961 to the present day, seeking to demonstrate how the tradition of historiographical inquiry into this war has evolved. The analysis of 21st-century historiography is divided into two parts. First, it examines more isolated studies and discussions, comprehensive syntheses of the war’s history, historical analyses of its causes and the foreign policies of involved states, and how the issues of guilt and responsibility are treated in these works. The second part of the dissertation considers the publication of Christopher Clark’s The Sleepwalkers as a pivotal turning point, regarded by many scholars as the most significant work on the war’s causes since the Fischer controversy. Clark’s theses are analyzed alongside post-Clark historiography: syntheses of war history, studies of its causes and the states‘ foreign policy. Special attention is given to the historiography of the July Crisis of 1914 and to the relationship between Clark’s position and the studies published in the past decade. Throughout the study, the goal is to assess how contemporary historiography interprets the issues of guilt and responsibility and how these prevailing interpretations compare and contrast with the long-standing tradition of historiography on the war and the thesis of Germany’s war guilt. |
