Reconstructing History

In George Orwell’s 1984, the Ministry of Truth is the propaganda ministry responsible for ensuring that historical events are falsified in order to maintain the status quo. It changes historical archives and rewrites recorded history for propaganda effect. Unless people can actually remember what really happened, there is no choice but for the general public to accept what is on record and in the “history books”.

But even if people do remember the actual events, there is nothing to corroborate and substantiate their claims if the history books have been rewritten. This thus makes it impossible, for example, for future generations to believe such claims. And of course, once people have forgotten the events themselves, or indeed once the people who experienced the events are no longer alive, people then have no choice but to rely on what exists as a record to present the “facts”.

Following the current obsession with all things World War I, I am reading and researching as much as I can get my hands on (and that’s a lot more than I had previously thought). The wealth of material just lying around waiting to be read is unbelievable, considering it all happened 100 years ago. The fact of the matter seems to be that people just wrote more back then and hung on to it. Or perhaps they just had better quality paper, as most of the stuff I have seen is in better condition than some of the things I wrote just 10 or 15 years ago. Letters home from soldiers in the field, newspapers, photos, diaries, the stuff just keeps on coming if you go looking for it.

Before I discovered all these original documents, I started out about 7 months ago with British historian Max Hastings’ book “Catastrophe”, which describes the outbreak of the Great War in 1914. It looked like a jolly good chunk of reading to engross myself in and the £30 seemed well worthwhile. I was expecting it to be much like the International History class I had taken at University back in the late 1970s, which taught us the causes and effects of World War I. As far as I remember, one of the main reasons so many countries had become embroiled in the war was the complicated system of treaties originally set up by Bismarck. The Archduke Ferdinand of Austria had been shot and that triggered a series of domino events, until, by 1918, just about everybody had piled into the fray.

It’s quite possible that I wasn’t listening as well as I should have been during the lectures (although I did pass the exam question on it with a good grade) or just that, in true historical fashion, my memory has failed me. But I’ve kind of got the feeling that Max Hastings is putting forward rather a different account of the matter in his book. In fact, there was so much anti-German bias that I stopped reading at Page 74 a couple of months ago and I haven’t been able to pick it up since. I’m not a historian, but I’m not completely stupid either.

What puzzles me is the issue of “war guilt” which seems about as daft a concept as you can get. Apparently, this is something that has landed in Germany’s lap, and why this is so is a mystery to me. How you can give just one country, which was not even one of the original belligerents, the blame for a worldwide conflict, makes no sense. I guess it was a matter of convenience back then. Germany was down and defeated and a scapegoat was needed. At that point, that’s got nothing to do with actually rewriting history, but it might have a lot to do with propaganda and a distortion of what were already very complicated events, far too complicated and confusing for most people to understand at all. In addition, most people want to comprehend such a wide-reaching event at a very local level, at the point where the event specifically affects them. The husband/father had to go to war, and the enemy killed him. They are therefore damned the enemy for all eternity.

But you don’t have to go very far or listen very hard to find out what the general thinking is today. Even many Germans themselves know very little about their own history, although it is their recent ancestors (between one and three generations away) that fought in this conflict. I’ve spoken to people who can’t seem to distinguish between the First and the Second World War, in that they believe the reasons for both conflicts were the same and that the politics were identical in both cases, and I’ve spoken to more intelligent and informed people who are not aware that Germany fought the Russians on the Eastern Front. You would be wasting your time if you asked them about the Triple Alliance or the Triple Entente.

And this is the Germans. In Britain, I think you would have even less luck with your quest for the correct recording of historical events as you need to factor in the prejudice and bias which logically don’t exist on the German side. I’ve heard opinions ranging from the belief that only the British and the Germans fought in the Great War, and it was the Germans who started it anyway, to the fact that the Germans were fighting an unjust war. Eh? Since when was a war “just”? Of course, the reason that Britain got involved in the First World War anyway was not because Germany was threatening it, and not even because Germany declared war on it, but because Britain wanted to defend the sovereignty of Belgium. Really? Are you kidding me? Belgium?

I have spent many months reading the personal letters of German soldiers and doctors at both the Eastern and the Western Fronts, as well as the diaries of soldiers and those at home. I’ve listened to stories from the descendants of those who returned, sometimes so ill that they died after a few years or spent a life in pain. I’m sure that the stories are the same on all “sides” and in all countries. This renders the question of any kind of “guilt” for me pointless. But what is so interesting about all these written accounts of the time, be they newspaper articles, diaries or letters, is that they are recounting the actual events as they happened. And that cannot be disputed. History books, on the other hand, are not mere reports but publications made after the events, possibly based on only a selection of the events, possibly based on a translation – with all the nuance of translation – of the events, possibly based on incorrect memories of the events, and to boot will always be governed by the personal opinion of the author.

What I have realized is that there is no need to destroy, change, rewrite or falsify history as the Ministry of Truth does in 1984. History will change over time all by itself. It will be incorrectly remembered, incorrectly reported, mistakes will be made and biases will be established. Propaganda may abound, possibly even due to completely different circumstances. You can leave all the old stuff lying around – all the old newspapers, books, letters and diaries. They will either be disposed of over time when someone decides to clear out the attic or fall into such disrepair that they become illegible and only fit for the trash anyway. Even if they are stored perfectly in an archive so that they don’t fall apart and don’t land in the trash, no one is going to read them because people will forget they are there and anyway, will always want to read the new shiny stuff. If you wanted to read about how World War I started, would you go to your local archive and ask to read the newspapers of the day or would you google “how did world war one start?”

After trying the history books and Google, I decided to read the newspapers of the day in my local archives. I have the advantage of bilingualism so that I can understand the German newspapers. In addition, I have no problem reading the old script in which they are printed, which might pose an additional hurdle for many people. And in doing so, I have gained a different perspective on the outbreak of the Great War. There is even one issue that slightly bothers me. It concerns the matter of Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war on Serbia. The current historical records tell us that Austria-Hungary delivered an ultimatum to Serbia following the assassination of Austria-Hungary’s heir to the throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, by a Serbian national. Austria-Hungary made a series of demands to Serbia, and Serbia agreed to just about all of them, but Austria-Hungary rejected Serbia’s response, proclaiming it unsatisfactory and declared war on Serbia anyway.

Germany was obliged to follow Austria-Hungary into war because of its treaties with Austria, and the Triple Entente – or at least France and Russia, as Britain was not obliged to join in a war – then entered the war on the side of Serbia, which was allied with Russia. The Germans marched through Belgium in an attempt to reach Paris, according to the Schlieffen-Plan, and by violating the neutrality of Belgium, caused Britain to join in (Britain had signed the Treaty of London in 1839, which pledged to protect the neutrality of Belgium). I know, it was complicated and wholly unnecessary. But what appears to be not quite correctly recorded in modern history books is the report of Austria-Hungary’s rejection of Serbia’s response.

Although the whole atmosphere in the first decade of the 20^th century was very tense in Europe anyway – Germany felt threatened and encircled by France and Russia, who had signed a treaty to become the Dual Entente (before the Triple Entente), Britain felt threatened by Germany who was a dominant force in industry and commerce in Europe, and France was pushing for revenge for the loss of the Franco-Prussian war of 1871 – it was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand that sparked everything off. Now the Archduke wasn’t just anyone. He was the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He went on a visit to Sarajevo in Bosnia, a fairly recent addition to the Empire and took an open carriage rideabout with his wife. There, both he and his wife were shot to death by a Serbian national belonging to a terrorist organization – and it is still unclear who this organization was being financed by.

In today’s terms, an equivalent would be that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, William and Catherine, went off on a visit to one of the Commonwealth countries, took a ride in an open-top limousine, and were shot by a terrorist.

Austria-Hungary waited a few weeks, then issued an ultimatum to Serbia which required a response within 48 hours otherwise war would be declared. War would also be declared if the response by Serbia was found to be unacceptable. And this is precisely what happened. Recorded history tells us that, not only did Austria-Hungary find Serbia’s response unacceptable, despite the fact that Serbia conceded to all demands by Austria-Hungary bar one or two minor clauses, but that Austria-Hungary had intended all along to declare war, regardless of Serbia’s response.

I read, transcribed and translated the newspaper reports from Vienna of the day. I don’t consider the clauses in question to be minor, and it does seem that the entire response is pervaded by a negative reaction. In addition, apparently within minutes of delivering the response, the Serbian army was mobilized. And if that was not enough, the Russian army also mobilized. The Germans issued an ultimatum to Russia on July 31, 1914, informing them that the German army would likewise be mobilized if the Russians did not terminate their preparations for war within 12 hours. Considering that Russia was allied with France, the consequences for Germany would have been fatal if it had not mobilized its own forces, as it was now completely encircled by enemies. This puts, I think, a bit of a different perspective on affairs than I have been reading in the established historical records up to now.