The Fischer Controversy, Documents and the ‘Truth’ About the Origins of the First World War

Abstract

This article focuses on the ‘document-driven’ nature of the Fischer controversy and the conviction of both the Fischer school and its critics that utilizing ever more archival documents would inevitably unearth ‘the truth’ about the origins of the First World War. It argues that the controversy left a lasting legacy precisely because of its positivist focus on documents as artefacts capable of revealing an indisputable ‘truth’ about the causes of the war, which shaped all subsequent debates. It further contends that the topic has sidestepped postmodern attempts to relativize history, because in an emotive debate that has for decades been defined by war-guilt allegations and apologia, the concept of historical truth is still held valid by historians participating in the debate. The article concludes by arguing that, as the First World War no longer affects contemporary politics, war-guilt no longer needs to concern those seeking to explain its causes. The shift from contemporary history to a history divorced from our own experience might lead historians finally be able to identify document-based probabilities, if not an undisputable truth, about how the war started.