Fritz Fellner titled Austria-Hungary from Decisions for War, 1914, edited
by Keith Wilson:
1. Summary of the Document
Fellner argues that Austria-Hungary was fully responsible for
deliberately initiating war against Serbia in July 1914, in the
knowledge that this action might escalate into a wider European war. The
chapter is grounded in new archival evidence and the work of historian
John Leslie, whom Fellner honours extensively.
Fellner traces the actions of key Austro-Hungarian diplomats and
politicians, highlighting a pre-meditated and ideologically motivated
decision for war, influenced by nationalism, imperial ambition, and Social
Darwinism. He argues Austria-Hungary used the assassination of
Archduke Franz Ferdinand as a convenient excuse to launch a long-
desired war against Serbia. However, he shifts the ultimate
responsibility for the European war onto Germany, which, according
to Fellner, exploited the Balkan conflict to launch a broader preventive
war.
2. Summary of Fellner’s Argument
Austria-Hungary deliberately chose war against Serbia, not as a
defensive move, but as a calculated pre-emptive strike.
The decision was made early (by 7 July 1914) and war was pursued
despite awareness of the risk of wider escalation.
Austria’s military and diplomatic elite, especially the so-called
"fronde of diplomatic cadets", were driven by an outdated,
aggressive imperialism inspired by Aehrenthal.
However, Germany escalated a regional conflict into a global
war. It gave Austria the infamous “blank cheque” of support, but
then manipulated the crisis to pursue its own military ambitions
against France and Russia.
Thus, Austria bears primary responsibility for starting a local
war, while Germany bears responsibility for the European-
wide conflict.
3. Type of Historian & Historical Stance
Type: Revisionist/Neo-revisionist. Fellner challenges national myths
and aims to correct public memory in Austria.
Stance: Argues Austro-Hungarian culpability in initiating war
and German culpability in expanding it.
, He is critical of nationalist-apologist narratives in Austrian
memory and sides with international scholars (e.g. Joll, Leslie,
Williamson).
4. School of Thought
Fellner’s stance aligns most closely with the post-Fischer school of
thought, which:
Accepts Fritz Fischer’s thesis that Germany was aggressive and
expansionist.
Adds that Austria-Hungary was also a willing and ideologically
driven actor, not just a puppet of German policy.
Uses archival-based, diplomatic, and intellectual history—
showing continuity of imperial ideology and planning.
5. Context of the Historian
Fritz Fellner (1922–2012) was a major Austrian historian.
His work emerges from a post-WWII environment in Austria where
national responsibility for war had been underplayed.
He sought to confront this reluctance and push Austria into a more
honest reckoning with its past.
His writing reflects the historical self-reckoning that many
Austrian intellectuals of the 1970s–90s were engaged in, countering
nationalist silence.
6. Key Quotes & Analysis Against Coursework Question
Quote Context What it Relevance Convincin
Suggests to Entente g?
Powers
“Even before it Austria used War was Shows Yes –
was certain the pre- Austria acted supports
which circles assassinatio planned; independentl minimal
were behind n as a Austria y of Entente Entente
the deed, pretext for sought influence or blame.
people in war. opportunity provocation.
Vienna were , not
already justice.
convinced ‘that
the moment
has come to
by Keith Wilson:
1. Summary of the Document
Fellner argues that Austria-Hungary was fully responsible for
deliberately initiating war against Serbia in July 1914, in the
knowledge that this action might escalate into a wider European war. The
chapter is grounded in new archival evidence and the work of historian
John Leslie, whom Fellner honours extensively.
Fellner traces the actions of key Austro-Hungarian diplomats and
politicians, highlighting a pre-meditated and ideologically motivated
decision for war, influenced by nationalism, imperial ambition, and Social
Darwinism. He argues Austria-Hungary used the assassination of
Archduke Franz Ferdinand as a convenient excuse to launch a long-
desired war against Serbia. However, he shifts the ultimate
responsibility for the European war onto Germany, which, according
to Fellner, exploited the Balkan conflict to launch a broader preventive
war.
2. Summary of Fellner’s Argument
Austria-Hungary deliberately chose war against Serbia, not as a
defensive move, but as a calculated pre-emptive strike.
The decision was made early (by 7 July 1914) and war was pursued
despite awareness of the risk of wider escalation.
Austria’s military and diplomatic elite, especially the so-called
"fronde of diplomatic cadets", were driven by an outdated,
aggressive imperialism inspired by Aehrenthal.
However, Germany escalated a regional conflict into a global
war. It gave Austria the infamous “blank cheque” of support, but
then manipulated the crisis to pursue its own military ambitions
against France and Russia.
Thus, Austria bears primary responsibility for starting a local
war, while Germany bears responsibility for the European-
wide conflict.
3. Type of Historian & Historical Stance
Type: Revisionist/Neo-revisionist. Fellner challenges national myths
and aims to correct public memory in Austria.
Stance: Argues Austro-Hungarian culpability in initiating war
and German culpability in expanding it.
, He is critical of nationalist-apologist narratives in Austrian
memory and sides with international scholars (e.g. Joll, Leslie,
Williamson).
4. School of Thought
Fellner’s stance aligns most closely with the post-Fischer school of
thought, which:
Accepts Fritz Fischer’s thesis that Germany was aggressive and
expansionist.
Adds that Austria-Hungary was also a willing and ideologically
driven actor, not just a puppet of German policy.
Uses archival-based, diplomatic, and intellectual history—
showing continuity of imperial ideology and planning.
5. Context of the Historian
Fritz Fellner (1922–2012) was a major Austrian historian.
His work emerges from a post-WWII environment in Austria where
national responsibility for war had been underplayed.
He sought to confront this reluctance and push Austria into a more
honest reckoning with its past.
His writing reflects the historical self-reckoning that many
Austrian intellectuals of the 1970s–90s were engaged in, countering
nationalist silence.
6. Key Quotes & Analysis Against Coursework Question
Quote Context What it Relevance Convincin
Suggests to Entente g?
Powers
“Even before it Austria used War was Shows Yes –
was certain the pre- Austria acted supports
which circles assassinatio planned; independentl minimal
were behind n as a Austria y of Entente Entente
the deed, pretext for sought influence or blame.
people in war. opportunity provocation.
Vienna were , not
already justice.
convinced ‘that
the moment
has come to
