Responce towards Iron Dice by John G. Stoessinger (Essay about cause of WW1)

Basically this is a response towards John G. Stoessinger's essay "Iron Dice: The causes of WW1" In case you haven't read this passage before, his main thesis is that

"The notion that WW1 is beyond men's control is wrong: Mortals made these decisions. They made them in fear and in trembling but they made them nonetheless. In most cases, the decision makers were not evil people bent on destruction but were frightened and entrapped by self-delusion. They based their policies on fears, not facts, and were singularly devoid of empathy. Misperception, rather than conscious evil design, appears to have been the leading villain in the drama."

My Essay:

Although Stoessinger's essay was well thought out and well written, I am afraid that I do not agree with his thesis. To say that World War 1 could have been caused by just the misperceptions of a few certain individuals is to undermine its significance. The war is not just caused because of a few certain individuals, but also many other extraneous factors, such as the general public opinions and the illusion of a short term war. Many of these factors could not be simply controlled by a few men, no matter how much power or authority they have.

The blame placed on the leaders of the countries is very much misplaced. Although they had a great deal of power, they were still influenced by what the citizens and what other government officials think about the war. Stoessinger blames the Kaiser for his paranoia and hatred of Slavs which had clouded the Kaiser's judgment and prompted him to lead German to strike first. But the Kaiser was not the only one in Germany who wanted to wage war. Many government circles also thought that the time was propitious for a European war. [Fischer, p. 72] The decision of waging war, contrary to Stoessinger's view, was not orchestrated single-handedly by a paranoid and arrogant Kaiser, but rather backed by many government officials as well.

All the European countries had good reasons for wanting a war as well. "Serbia was right in wanting to expand, Austria in wanting to survive. Germany was right in fearing isolation, Great Britain in fearing German power." [Remak, p.62] All these countries needed to wage war since the balance of power was no longer balanced. All of these countries had good motives for a war, therefore, it is illogical to place the blame just upon the leaders of those countries, rather than analyzing the circumstances that made the countries want to wage war.

Furthermore, no one thought that the war would drag on for more than a couple of weeks. As Stoessinger himself wrote, the Germans thought that their soldiers would be home "before the leaves have fallen from the trees." The Russian Imperial Guard even considered brining their dress uniforms along with them for the parade in Berlin. Everyone thought that this war would be over in a matter of weeks. This illusion made them more eager to accept a war, since it was supposed to be over shortly after it starts.

It is easy to place the blame of the entire war on a selected few individuals. We would all like things to be simple and finding a couple of unfortunate leaders in power guilty seems to be the easiest solution. However, the truth is just not that simple. The truth is that everyone was to blame, the circumstances that created the need for war, the short war illusion that everyone entertained, and the governments who felt the need for a war. The responsibility of preventing World War One rests not solely upon the shoulders of a few selected individuals.

ANY ADVICE, EDITS AND SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO IMPROVE THIS ESSAY IS GREATLY APPRECIATED xD

Okay, then I expect to see those factors explained as such in the essay... I'll keep reading...

Although they had a great deal of power, they were still influenced by what the citizens and what other government officials thought about the war.

I'll add a semi-colons so that it is not a run on sentence:
All of these countries had good motives for a war; therefore, it is illogical to place the blame just upon the leaders of those countries, rather than analyzing the circumstances that made the countries want to wage war.

Okay, somewhere in the essay you should acknowledge what he actually means: that it could have gone a very different way if a few individuals had made different decisions -- that the few decided the fates of many. YOU have argued that many contextual factors were influential, but you have not really shown that the leaders did not have the ability to make a crucial decision.

Maybe you just need to tweak your thesis to acknowledge the part of his argument that you accept.

The essay can only support the argument you are making if you talk about the mechanisms of government, the kinds of authority enjoyed by each leader involved in what was to become the war. Well, no you really don't! You just have to acknowledge the part of what Stoessinger is saying that is reasonable to prove that you did not miss his point!

I am afraid I am not making sense.
:-)