Perry Anderson’s Disputing Disaster: A Sextet on the Great War is not your typical recounting of battlefield stories or wartime heroics. Instead, it plunges into a century-old debate: what really caused the First World War? Was it a culmination of systemic failures, reckless decisions, or something deeper embedded in the fabric of European politics? Anderson revisits six historians who have wrestled with this question, dissecting their perspectives and adding his own voice to the enduring discourse.

The Evolution of Blame
For decades after the war, Germany bore the brunt of the blame, a stance codified in the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. Over time, however, historians began to explore a more nuanced narrative, one that implicated all major powers. Anderson aligns himself with this broader perspective, focusing on the systemic causes of the war rather than just the July 1914 crisis. His argument centers on the collapse of the Concert of Europe, a framework of diplomacy established in 1815 to prevent large-scale conflicts, and the rise of imperialist ambitions, particularly after 1885.
The Six Historians and Their Perspectives
Anderson’s exploration of six prominent historians reveals the complexity and diversity of interpretations surrounding the war’s origins. Here’s a glimpse of his approach:
- Pierre Renouvin: A French historian and a war veteran, Renouvin firmly believed in Germany’s culpability due to its decisions in 1914. Anderson contrasts this with contemporaries like Sidney Fay, who argued for shared responsibility and systemic failure.
- Luigi Albertini: Best known for his exhaustive three-volume study on the July 1914 crisis, Albertini also provides insights into Italy’s political turmoil. Anderson critiques his conservative leanings but provides limited analysis of his actual work on the war.
- Fritz Fischer: Fischer reignited debates on German war guilt in the 1960s by highlighting Germany’s expansionist aims. Anderson acknowledges Fischer’s selective use of evidence but credits him for sparking liberal reforms in post-war Germany.
- Keith Wilson: Anderson portrays Wilson as a brilliant but underappreciated scholar whose work focused on British diplomacy. However, his contributions lack a unifying argument, making his chapter feel somewhat disjointed.
- Christopher Clark: Clark’s The Sleepwalkers shifted focus from Germany to Austria-Hungary and the Balkans, exploring the chaotic decisions leading to war. Anderson also delves into Clark’s other works, adding layers to his analysis.
- Paul Schroeder: The historian who perhaps most aligns with Anderson’s views, Schroeder connects the war’s origins to the collapse of the Concert of Europe. His work also critiques modern parallels, including U.S. foreign policy post-9/11.

Missing Voices and Gaps
While Anderson’s selection is broad, some voices are conspicuously absent. Samuel Williamson, whose work on Austria-Hungary significantly shaped modern understanding of the war’s origins, is notably missing. His research highlighted the pivotal role of Austria-Hungary’s insecurities in the Balkans, a perspective that complements Anderson’s systemic analysis.
A Debate That Endures
Anderson concludes by noting that the debate over the Great War’s origins remains mired in disciplinary silos. Historians and international relations theorists continue to approach the topic from different angles, with the Fischer thesis still dominating certain academic circles. This divergence underscores the complexity of understanding an event as monumental as the First World War.
Final Thoughts
Disputing Disaster is an intellectually dense and rewarding read for those already familiar with the historiography of the First World War. Anderson’s engagement with systemic causes and his critique of individual historians provide valuable insights, but the book demands a well-versed audience. For newcomers, the lack of context around the war’s outbreak might prove challenging.
In relitigating the causes of the First World War, Anderson doesn’t offer definitive answers. Instead, he invites readers to grapple with the persistent ambiguities of history—a fitting tribute to a debate that refuses to be settled.