War guilt question

http://dbpedia.org/resource/War_guilt_question an entity of type: Thing

Als Kriegsschuldfrage (frz.: question de la responsabilité dans la guerre; engl.: question of war guilt) bezeichnete man in der Weimarer Republik die öffentliche Debatte über die Schuld an der Auslösung des Ersten Weltkriegs. Trotz vergleichbarer Debatten bei vielen anderen Kriegen behandelte die Geschichtswissenschaft des 20. Jahrhunderts unter diesem Begriff meist die Ursachen und Verantwortlichkeiten des Ersten Weltkriegs. rdf:langString

戰爭罪責問題（德語：Kriegsschuldfrage）是魏瑪共和國期間在德國大部分時間發生的公開辯論，旨在確定德國在第一次世界大戰的原因中應承擔的責任。這場辯論分為幾個階段，很大程度上取決於《凡爾賽條約》的影響和勝利的盟國的態度，這場辯論也發生在其他捲入衝突的國家，如法國和英國。戰爭罪責問題激發了歷史學家如漢斯·德爾布呂克、、和弗里茨·菲舍爾等歷史學家的討論，但也吸引了更廣泛的圈子，包括庫爾特·圖霍爾斯基和等知識分子以及公眾。戰爭罪的問題在魏瑪共和國的歷史中無處不在。魏瑪共和國於1919年6月簽署凡爾賽條約前不久成立，這場辯論貫穿起歷史直到消亡，之後戰爭罪責問題也被納粹黨用作競選和宣傳的論據。儘管並非沒有引起很大爭議，戰爭罪責問題使調查第一次世界大戰的深層次原因成為可能，但它也使確定衝突的其他方面成為可能，例如民眾的作用和德國通往民主的特殊道路問題。這場辯論多年來一直阻礙著德國政治進步，但也表明古斯塔夫·施特雷澤曼等政治家能夠在不損害德國利益的情況下，通過推進一般性討論來直面戰爭罪責問題。 rdf:langString

La Kriegsschuldfrage (literalmente "cuestión sobre la responsabilidad en la guerra") designa el debate público que se desarrolló en Alemania con el fin de establecer la parte de responsabilidad alemana en la Primera Guerra Mundial. El debate tuvo lugar en su mayor parte durante la República de Weimar y se articuló en varias fases determinadas en gran medida por la repercusión del Tratado de Versalles (1919) y la actitud de los vencedores. Este debate también se llevó a cabo en otros países implicados en el conflicto, como Francia y el Reino Unido. rdf:langString

La Kriegsschuldfrage (littéralement « question de la responsabilité dans la guerre ») est le débat public en Allemagne, pour la plus grande partie pendant la république de Weimar, pour établir la part de responsabilité allemande dans la Première Guerre mondiale. S'articulant en plusieurs phases, déterminées en grande partie par le retentissement du traité de Versailles et l'attitude des vainqueurs, ce débat a également eu lieu dans d'autres pays impliqués dans le conflit, comme la France et la Grande-Bretagne. rdf:langString

The war guilt question (German: Kriegsschuldfrage) is the public debate that took place in Germany for the most part during the Weimar Republic, to establish Germany's share of responsibility in the causes of the First World War. Structured in several phases, and largely determined by the impact of the Treaty of Versailles and the attitude of the victorious Allies, this debate also took place in other countries involved in the conflict, such as in the French Third Republic and the United Kingdom. rdf:langString

rdfs:label

rdf:langString Kriegsschuldfrage

rdf:langString War guilt question

rdf:langString 戰爭罪責問題

dbpedia-owl:wikiPageID

xsd:integer 64596812

dbpedia-owl:wikiPageRevisionID

xsd:integer 1120579745

dbpprop:grid

rdf:langString no

dbpprop:author

rdf:langString John Keegan

rdf:langString Hew Strachan

rdf:langString James Joll

rdf:langString Walter Fabian

rdf:langString Paul W Schroeder

dbpprop:date

rdf:langString December 2020

rdf:langString February 2021

rdf:langString March 2021

dbpprop:float

rdf:langString right

dbpprop:height

xsd:integer 238

dbpprop:langcode

rdf:langString fr

rdf:langString de

dbpprop:otherarticle

rdf:langString Kriegsschuldfrage#France

rdf:langString Kriegsschuldfrage#Frankreich

rdf:langString Kriegsschuldfrage#National-socialisme

rdf:langString Kriegsschuldfrage#Zeit des Nationalsozialismus

dbpprop:reason

rdf:langString Confused original: "jedoch differenzierter als bei Fischer auch aus den gesamteuropäischen Mächtekonstellationen und Krisensituationen vor 1914 erklärt"

rdf:langString Who abandoned, the SDP reps, or the Allies?

rdf:langString appears to be a student paper at university

rdf:langString unclear in the original: 'qui reçoivent même les partis politiques'

dbpprop:section

rdf:langString yes

dbpprop:small

rdf:langString no

dbpprop:source

xsd:gMonthDay --09-12

rdf:langString

rdf:langString in

rdf:langString Fabian

rdf:langString The Road to Ruin in Europe

rdf:langString Wer war schuld? – Wie es zum Ersten Weltkrieg kam. [Who was to blame? - How the First World War came about.]

rdf:langString The First World War, Chapter One: A European Tragedy

rdf:langString Embedded counterfactuals and World War I as an unavoidable war

dbpprop:text

rdf:langString Germany had not plotted the Great War, had not desired a war, and had made genuine, though belated and ill-organized efforts to avert it.

rdf:langString Numerical inferiority and geographic location meant that in the event of war, Germany could not simply remain on the defensive: It had to act decisively and attack. ... Maintaining and breaking alliances became an end in itself, more important than keeping the peace. Consequently, no state bore particular guilt in 1914.

rdf:langString who even received the political parties

rdf:langString Consensus historians recognize further that Germany, already in 1914 largely isolated diplomatically and threatened with encirclement by the Triple Entente, faced an imminent future threat, that once Russia had completed its announced plans for military expansion, scheduled for completion by 1917, the German army would be numerically as decisively inferior to those of its opponents as the German navy already was on the sea. […] Thus in both cases the supposedly counterproductive and dangerous foreign policies of Germany and Austria-Hungary culminating in their gamble in 1914 are linked to a wider problem and at least partly explained by it: the failure or refusal of their regimes to reform and modernize in order to meet their internal political and social problems.

rdf:langString more differentiated way than by Fischer also from the pan-European power constellations and crisis situations before 1914

rdf:langString The First World War was a tragic and unnecessary conflict. Unnecessary because the train of events that led to its outbreak might have been broken at any point during the five weeks of crisis that preceded the first clash of arms.

rdf:langString Although Fischer's work reinforces the assumption that German leaders bore the greatest portion of responsibility for the outbreak and prolongation of World War I, it obliges British historians all the more to look again at the British government's share.

rdf:langString In any other state, the army and navy are nothing but instruments of foreign policy. In militarized Germany, they had a special position; since Bismarck no longer stood in their way, they were more powerful than an Imperial Chancellor and far more popular than all diplomacy.

rdf:langString The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.

rdf:langString All [major European powers] thought they were acting under outside pressure. All of them thought that the war was being forced on them by their opponents. However, all of them made decisions that contributed to the escalation of the crisis. To that extent, they all bear responsibility, not just Germany.

dbpprop:width

xsd:integer 400

dbpedia-owl:abstract

rdf:langString Als Kriegsschuldfrage (frz.: question de la responsabilité dans la guerre; engl.: question of war guilt) bezeichnete man in der Weimarer Republik die öffentliche Debatte über die Schuld an der Auslösung des Ersten Weltkriegs. Trotz vergleichbarer Debatten bei vielen anderen Kriegen behandelte die Geschichtswissenschaft des 20. Jahrhunderts unter diesem Begriff meist die Ursachen und Verantwortlichkeiten des Ersten Weltkriegs.

rdf:langString La Kriegsschuldfrage (literalmente "cuestión sobre la responsabilidad en la guerra") designa el debate público que se desarrolló en Alemania con el fin de establecer la parte de responsabilidad alemana en la Primera Guerra Mundial. El debate tuvo lugar en su mayor parte durante la República de Weimar y se articuló en varias fases determinadas en gran medida por la repercusión del Tratado de Versalles (1919) y la actitud de los vencedores. Este debate también se llevó a cabo en otros países implicados en el conflicto, como Francia y el Reino Unido. El debate en torno a la Kriegsschuldfrage no solo movilizó a historiadores como Hans Delbrück, Wolfgang J. Mommsen, Gerhard Hirschfeld o Fritz Fischer, sino a un círculo más bien grande que comprendía a varios intelectuales como Kurt Tucholsky o Siegfried Jacobsohn, así como la opinión pública. La historia de la República de Weimar estuvo impregnada en parte por la 'Kriegsschuldfrage: fundada poco tiempo antes de la firma del Tratado de Versalles, la república encarnó hasta su desaparición este debate que será retomado como argumento de campaña por los nacional-socialistas. Si la Kriegsschuldfrage ha permitido investigar los orígenes profundos de la Primera Guerra Mundial —no sin provocar varias polémicas—, también ha hecho posible esclarecer otros aspectos del conflicto como, por ejemplo, el rol de las masas o la cuestión del sonderweg (una polémica teórica que sostenía que los alemanes habían seguido un curso único de la aristocracia a la democracia, distinto de otros países europeos). Este debate que frenó varios años el progreso político alemán mostró igualmente que políticos como Gustav Stresemann pudieron confrontar el problema de la responsabilidad por medio de la reflexión general sin transigir sobre los intereses alemanes. Aunque desde 1945 tuvieron lugar varios debates parecidos, el concepto concierne más particularmente al primer conflicto mundial.

rdf:langString La Kriegsschuldfrage (littéralement « question de la responsabilité dans la guerre ») est le débat public en Allemagne, pour la plus grande partie pendant la république de Weimar, pour établir la part de responsabilité allemande dans la Première Guerre mondiale. S'articulant en plusieurs phases, déterminées en grande partie par le retentissement du traité de Versailles et l'attitude des vainqueurs, ce débat a également eu lieu dans d'autres pays impliqués dans le conflit, comme la France et la Grande-Bretagne. Le débat autour de la Kriegsschuldfrage a mobilisé les historiens, comme Hans Delbrück, Wolfgang J. Mommsen, Gerhard Hirschfeld ou Fritz Fischer, mais aussi un cercle bien plus large, comprenant de nombreux intellectuels, comme Kurt Tucholsky ou Siegfried Jacobsohn, et l'opinion publique. L'histoire de la république de Weimar a été imprégnée de part en part par la Kriegsschuldfrage : fondée peu de temps avant la signature du traité de Versailles, elle incarnera jusqu'à sa disparition ce débat qui sera repris comme argument de campagne par les nationaux-socialistes. Si la Kriegsschuldfrage a permis de rechercher les origines profondes de la Première Guerre mondiale, non sans provoquer de nombreuses polémiques, elle a également permis de dégager d'autres aspects du conflit, comme le rôle des masses et la question du Sonderweg. Ce débat, qui a bloqué de nombreuses années la progression politique allemande, a également montré que les hommes politiques, comme Gustav Stresemann, ont pu se confronter au problème de la responsabilité en faisant avancer la réflexion générale, sans transiger sur les intérêts allemands. Depuis 1945, de nombreux débats semblables ont eu lieu, le concept concernant plus particulièrement la Première Guerre mondiale.

rdf:langString The war guilt question (German: Kriegsschuldfrage) is the public debate that took place in Germany for the most part during the Weimar Republic, to establish Germany's share of responsibility in the causes of the First World War. Structured in several phases, and largely determined by the impact of the Treaty of Versailles and the attitude of the victorious Allies, this debate also took place in other countries involved in the conflict, such as in the French Third Republic and the United Kingdom. The war guilt debate motivated historians such as Hans Delbrück, Wolfgang J. Mommsen, Gerhard Hirschfeld, and Fritz Fischer, but also a much wider circle including intellectuals such as Kurt Tucholsky and Siegfried Jacobsohn, as well as the general public. The war guilt question pervaded the history of the Weimar Republic. Founded shortly before the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919, Weimar embodied this debate until its demise, after which it was subsequently taken up as a campaign argument by the Nazi Party. While the war guilt question made it possible to investigate the deep-rooted causes of the First World War, although not without provoking a great deal of controversy, it also made it possible to identify other aspects of the conflict, such as the role of the masses and the question of Germany's special path to democracy, the Sonderweg. This debate, which obstructed German political progress for many years, also showed that politicians such as Gustav Stresemann were able to confront the war guilt question by advancing the general discussion without compromising German interests. A century later, debate continues into the 21st century. The main outlines of the debate include: how much diplomatic and political room to maneuver was available; the inevitable consequences of pre-war armament policies; the role of domestic policy and social and economic tensions in the foreign relations of the states involved; the role of public opinion and their experience of war in the face of organized propaganda; the role of economic interests and top military commanders in torpedoing deescalation and peace negotiations; the Sonderweg theory; and the long-term trends which tend to contextualize the First World War as a condition or preparation for the Second, such as Raymond Aron who views the two world wars as the new Thirty Years' War, a theory reprised by Enzo Traverso in his work.

rdf:langString 戰爭罪責問題（德語：Kriegsschuldfrage）是魏瑪共和國期間在德國大部分時間發生的公開辯論，旨在確定德國在第一次世界大戰的原因中應承擔的責任。這場辯論分為幾個階段，很大程度上取決於《凡爾賽條約》的影響和勝利的盟國的態度，這場辯論也發生在其他捲入衝突的國家，如法國和英國。戰爭罪責問題激發了歷史學家如漢斯·德爾布呂克、、和弗里茨·菲舍爾等歷史學家的討論，但也吸引了更廣泛的圈子，包括庫爾特·圖霍爾斯基和等知識分子以及公眾。戰爭罪的問題在魏瑪共和國的歷史中無處不在。魏瑪共和國於1919年6月簽署凡爾賽條約前不久成立，這場辯論貫穿起歷史直到消亡，之後戰爭罪責問題也被納粹黨用作競選和宣傳的論據。儘管並非沒有引起很大爭議，戰爭罪責問題使調查第一次世界大戰的深層次原因成為可能，但它也使確定衝突的其他方面成為可能，例如民眾的作用和德國通往民主的特殊道路問題。這場辯論多年來一直阻礙著德國政治進步，但也表明古斯塔夫·施特雷澤曼等政治家能夠在不損害德國利益的情況下，通過推進一般性討論來直面戰爭罪責問題。

data from the linked data cloud