Most historians have a difficult time dispensing with their biases when writing historical treatises. They are after all merely Human, so this tendency is quite natural and should be expected from their readers. As large, complex events such as World War I are studied in great deal historians, researchers, and other interested parties tend to migrate to what are known as “schools of thought”. Each school believes it has found the answer or answers that explain the reasons for why such events have happened. In many cases these schools are also politicized to support prevailing political ideologies in a society and\or encourage a group-thing among a society’s citizens. None of this means that the research such “schools of thought”, which has been popularized in the mainstream, is necessarily inaccurate or wrong. However, under such circumstances it is easy for a veil of deceit and subterfuge to become the surface of such studies and in some cases replace good research with inept conclusions for various agendas.
World War I was a horrific conflict and unlike World War II after its conclusion, was allowed to be studied from a variety of quickly released resources that the second war’s researchers did not enjoy. However, as one historian as already noted, the documents released soon after the first world war’s conclusion were done so with the added intention of legitimizing the claims in the war made by each country’s release as well as with their to claims to innocence of any involvement towards initiating the conflict.
Such documentation has of course led to much debate over the actual reasons behind this cataclysm in world history; most of it being quite honest attempts since it did not have the overlying concerns of the “Holocaust” or the “European Jewish Question” to contend with. However, some will still claim that even the Jews in 1914 and before it were responsible for this event. Whatever their influence at the time it certainly was not in the various political groups that made up the leadership of the belligerents; at least not to the extent that they are given credit for.
The short answer to this decades’ old question is that they were all responsible due to their miscalculation of the expected consequences of their actions and there were specific reasons for these miscalculation the answer to which will be provided in the conclusion to this paper.