A challenging legacy: Hans-Hubertus Mack discusses the place of memories of the First World War in Germany and the German approach to commemoration of the centenary of that conflict.

• Author: Mack, Hans-Hubertus
• Position: Essay

The First World War has achieved a relevance in Germany that would have been difficult to conceive just a few years ago. Until this change the study of the origins, course and results of the First World War from a German perspective has largely been confined to specialists. Only occasionally, as during the controversy over the theses advanced by historian Fritz Fischer in the 1960s, has the First World War overshadowed the Second World War in public discourse. The First World War seems to provide a challenging legacy and even after 100 years its reappraisal remains exciting and productive.

**********

Let me begin with the year 1918. For Germany, the end of the First World War meant not merely the loss of its position as a great power and of its colonial empire. It also brought to light the serious social distortions that had been in the offing years before but successfully covered up in times of peace. After the end of the war, they inevitably caused the collapse of the monarchy. Admittedly, the formal transition into a parliamentary monarchy had been successfully completed during the war, but the circumstance brought about revolution and reorganisation. The elites who had been the pillars of the system responded to the inevitable loss with some kind of dual refusal. They refused to accept the reality of defeat and the introduction of democracy and parliamentarism, which they perceived as alienation and 'de-Germanisation'.

The Entente forces did not perceive the Weimar coalition as a political factor that gave rise to ideas of compensation and international co-operation, especially at the end of the war, but as representative of a state oriented towards aggressive expansion. Moreover, since 1917 the socialist forces in Germany had failed to hold a dialogue across trenches and borders so that is was fair to speak about a national camp mentality in Germany. Accordingly, the German social democracy responded quite sharply to the war-guilt clause of the Treaty of Versailles. According to the future Reich president, Friedrich Ebert, they had wanted to reclaim a 'Wilson's Peace' and 'not let themselves be bullied by the Ententists'. (1)

As a result, the debate over the treaty and the heavy burdens included in it threw German society into long-lasting conflict, overshadowing any possible new beginning. The blame was not put on those who instigated and planned the war but on those who had doubts about a victorious peace and early on offered negotiations to end the war. Misjudging the real situation, the former were of the opinion that the German Army had remained undefeated in the field. In 1919, Field Marshal Mackensen got to the heart of the matter:

Not the troops of the Entente but Germany's worst enemy, its own people, in its unique character brought about the collapse. And now, this people continues to rage at German flesh and blood in the cities ... Prussian militarism educated, the social democratic 'freedom' corrupts the people. (2) Mackensen thus put forward the leitmotif of the stab-in-the-back legend, an image that over the years served especially right-wing opponents of the young and unstable Weimar democracy as a means to play off the different political camps against each other and to eventually undermine the despised democratic system. To top it all, in his welcoming address to the troops returning from the field, Ebert himself declared: 'No enemy has vanquished you.' The fight against the so-called war-guilt lie, the reinterpretation of the defeat as stab in the back of the bravely fighting army and the revisionist concept against Versailles provided the basic attitude of a German policy of transition into the 1920s. The com promise of Weimar agreed by the political camps in Germany was shaky, and the right wing proceeded on the assumption that it was an interim solution that had to be overcome as soon as possible. For the remaining elites, accepting the defeat was out of the question. Among elite circles, the war itself--and this is part of its reception--was stylised as the frontline experience per se, and endowed with pathos. The extreme right wing added the glorification of being a frontline soldier (Frontkampfertum), which characterised, in particular, the many military alliances in the Weimar Republic. German memory in the immediate post-war period was thus characterised by two motives: revenge and repression.

Academic context

I will now examine the academic reception regarding this difficult legacy of the First World War as it took place in Germany and Europe on the cusp of the 21st century. July 2014 marked the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War. Whereas in Belgium, France, the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Austria the Great War or Grande Guerre is commemorated with considerable expense and attracts great interest from the media and the public, the approaching anniversary does not meet with the same response in Germany as in the above-mentioned states.

In contrast, the discussion in Germany appeared rather restrained. Meanwhile, important events take place and especially the museum landscape faces this topic with impressive special exhibitions. The question, however, of whether the course and impact of this event of the century pull at the heartstrings of the Germans can be answered in the negative. There is no chance of a wide social discussion about the First World War with active participation of all relevant groups as in other Western European states. Nevertheless--and this should be emphasised --the federal president observed a day of remembrance of the First World War at his official seat in Berlin in an elaborate and impressive way in the middle of last year, which, in my opinion, set standards.

Flow to explain the differences in dealing with the 'seminal catastrophe of the 20th century'? In order to provide an adequate answer to this question about the differences in the perception of this event, it is necessary to take a look at the context--and this also includes Germany's neighbours. The main objective is to study the beginning and end, as well as the causes and consequences, of the First World War more thoroughly. While today in many parts of Germany, 11 November at 11 am is celebrated noisily and with joy as the beginning of a carnival, for many British citizens this is the day to quietly commemorate their soldiers who were killed in action. As an outward sign, they attach a poppy to their clothing. This tradition goes back to the poem 'In Flanders Fields' by John McCrae from Canada, in which he describes the red poppies on the battlefields of Flanders and northern France. The red colour of the poppy is also a symbol for the blood of the fallen soldiers.

Armistice origins

Although nowadays, on 'Remembrance Day', the United Kingdom commemorates British soldiers killed in all wars, the day-- originally called 'Armistice Day'--dates back to the end of the First World War, since never before and after had Great Britain suffered greater losses in a war than in the 'Great War'. In addition to the commemoration of soldiers killed in action, this is also a day of expressing pride in their own soldiers. In France, Armistice Day' is an official holiday of great social...