(2002- 1 1-28 12: 10:50)
The First World War was a hegemony war between capitalist countries due to the unbalanced political and economic development, and it was an unprecedented disaster in human history. Peace and development are two major themes in today's world. In order to strive for peace and promote development, people try to draw lessons from historical disasters as a warning, which urges historians to strengthen their research on the history of war, and the history of the First World War is an important part of scholars' research. This paper intends to give a brief introduction to the study of the history of the First World War in China.
First, about the origin and responsibility of war.
1. The origin of the war:
(1) On the Principal Contradictions between Britain and Germany: Struve believes that the contradiction between Britain and Germany in the redistribution of world issues is the principal contradiction in capitalist countries in the early 20th century and one of the main reasons for the outbreak of the First World War [1]. Zhao Huijie believes that 18 The evolution of the relationship between Britain and Germany since the 1970s shows that although the role played by the conflict between Britain and Germany in the outbreak of World War I is not unique, it cannot be underestimated. Naval competition and the formation and development of allies are two main manifestations of the contradiction between Britain and Germany. They were interrelated and influenced each other, and eventually became the main factor leading to the outbreak of the First World War.
(2) The Main Theory of Franco-German Contradiction: Chen believes that from the actual situation, the Main Theory of Franco-German Contradiction is not comprehensive. Britain regards Germany as its main rival, while Germany does not regard Britain as its main enemy in national policy, but only in specific policies and naval competition. So the contradiction between the two countries does not constitute the main contradiction. Germany's biggest enemy is France, no matter from the hegemonic position of Europe or the development of Germany. 〔3〕
(3) On the Principal Contradictions between Russia and Germany: Zhang thinks that the Principal Contradictions between Britain and Germany are totally inconsistent with historical facts. Before the First World War, there was no irreconcilable contradiction or serious conflict between Britain and Germany on the colonial issue. The contradiction between Russia and Germany is far sharper and more prominent than that between Britain and Germany. If World War I was caused by the struggle for colonies and spheres of influence, it is obvious that the contradiction between Russia and Germany is a more direct cause [4].
2. War responsibility:
Luo believes that the responsibility of the state in these two groups is different. Although France can't say "innocence", it is at least passive; Russia and Britain contributed to the outbreak of war; Italy should not take any responsibility for the outbreak of World War I; Austria-Hungary is more responsible for the direct cause of the war than the above-mentioned countries. Germany is the most enthusiastic country to wage war, and Kaiser Wilhelm II is the chief culprit of World War I. [5]
Pan and Li Julian believe that the origin and responsibility of war should be viewed from three levels: times, pattern and people. From the perspective of "times", the hegemonism of big countries under modern conditions and the rapid improvement of economy and technology of major capitalist countries are the conditions for the possibility of a world war at the beginning of the 20 th century; Judging from the "pattern", the formation of two opposing alliance systems and a new pattern of military groups in the early 20 th century laid a curse for the evolution from local wars to total wars; From the perspective of "people", the road to World War I is very spontaneous, which is related to the decision-making actions of powerful people in big countries and the handling of crises. Rigid policies and actions, lack of necessary compromise and appeasement, contributed to the rapid head-on collision between the two groups. 〔6〕
Second, about World War I and America.
1. Neutrality and participation of the United States: Shi Xuguang believes that whether the United States is neutral or involved in World War I depends on whether it can safeguard its "interest line". That is, using the war situation in wartime to obtain excess profits in a neutral position and take the opportunity to expand globally; After the war, he can recover the war loan and then gain the right to control international affairs as an arbitrator. The direct reason why the United States entered the war was that the neutral country's interest line was broken, so it could only enter the war to obtain the interests that the neutral country could no longer have. 〔7〕
2. American mediation diplomacy: Ray Wu and Yang Chunlong believed that mediation diplomacy was an important part of American policy toward Europe during World War I, and the United States maintained the pattern of confrontation and containment between the two groups through mediation and compromise until the war broke out, paving the way for world domination. 〔8〕
Three, about China's participation in the war and the Paris Peace Conference.
1. On China's participation in the war
(1) On Japan's Influence: Ray Wu believes that the dispute over China's participation in the war by the Northern Warlords during World War I, that is, the "official court dispute", is essentially a reflection of the US-Japan struggle for control of China. As a result, the warring factions represented by Duan won, that is, the Japanese invaders won. 〔9〕
(2) "The theory of joint influence of the United States and Japan": Li Zixiong believed that China's participation in the war was the result of joint influence of the United States and Japan. American diplomatic activities broke the diplomatic deadlock of China's participation in the war and laid an objective foundation for China's participation in the war. The Japanese manipulated the warlords in China politically and bought the warlords in China economically, making them agree to participate in the war. Both the United States and Japan played an important role in China's war. 〔 10〕
2. Evaluation of China's participation in World War I and the Paris Peace Conference.
Historians hold a negative attitude on this issue. On the other hand, Yuan Jicheng and Wang Hailin believe that this cannot be completely denied. If we calmly put China's participation in World War I and the Paris Peace Conference in the long history of China's modern struggle to get rid of semi-colonial and semi-feudal state and strive for national independence, we will feel that China's participation in the war is not unreasonable. China gained and lost at the Paris Peace Conference: first, he took back the privilege of Deao in China; Secondly, it signed treaties on Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria and became a member of the League of Nations. Third, China's protest at the peace conference not only reflected the indignation of the Chinese nation, but also promoted the new awakening and new struggle of the Chinese nation. 〔 1 1〕
Fourth, about the relationship between war and revolution.
Whether the relationship between World War I and revolution can be explained by the formula "War leads to revolution, and revolution stops war" has different opinions in historians.
1. Affirmation: Shi Sen believes that the important role of revolutionary struggle in stopping the war cannot be denied. War and revolution are both forms of class struggle. Although war is not the fundamental cause of revolution, it is often an important condition for accelerating revolution. When the revolutionary force is strong, it is possible to delay and stop the outbreak of war. Although the revolutionary movements in Germany and other countries failed to stop the First World War, they played an important role in accelerating the end of the war. Yao Hai believes that the most basic feature of the October Revolution was caused by World War I [13]. Pan Liming believes that World War I is the primary factor for the smooth realization of the February Revolution and the October Revolution in Russia. Both revolutions took place during World War I, and international imperialism had no time to take care of them, thus making the revolutions successful. 〔 14〕
2. Negative opinion: Mao Haijian believes that there is no direct and inevitable causal relationship between revolution and war. World War I did not stop because of the revolution, but ended after the victory of the October Revolution in Russia, when revolutionary movements in various countries were in the ascendant. These revolutions have played a certain role in accelerating the end of the war, but they are not the main factors, let alone the only factors. The war mainly ended in military victory or defeat. [15] Xia Ting thinks that it is correct for Soviet Russia to withdraw from World War I after the October Revolution, but one of its objective consequences is not to accelerate but to delay the end of the war. On the one hand, the Soviet Union and Russia made many concessions in exchange for Germany to stop attacking, which was of great benefit to Germany in military, political and economic aspects. The Allies were in a difficult situation and delayed Germany's surrender. On the other hand, the main reason for Germany's failure is its failure on the battlefield. The October Revolution only had a certain impact on the German people's anti-war struggle, which was only secondary to the benefits brought to Germany by the withdrawal of Soviet Russia from the war. 〔 16〕
Verb (abbreviation of verb) on the influence and position of World War I
1. World War I
Gong Min believed that the First World War was a world-scale war, which had a far-reaching worldwide impact on the international political and economic structure. [17] Li Zhifang believes that there are four reasons for making World War I a world war: First, several major capitalist countries that rule the world control several colonies and dependent countries, and a country's participation in the war also means that its colonies and dependent countries participate in the war; Second, World War I was to carve up the world again, and the warring sides fought for it in the world. Third, in order to defeat their opponents, both warring parties tried their best to attract other countries to join; Fourth, the world has been United economically, and capital output and economic interests will inevitably affect the attitudes of countries to war. 〔 18〕
2. The impact of the First World War:
Lu Wenpu believes that the influence of World War I on the modern historical process of the world is no less than that of the October Revolution, which is closely related to it. Therefore, these two events can be regarded as a sign that world history has entered a new era, namely, the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. [19] Xia Ting and Zhang Qinxian believe that World War I had a far-reaching and extensive impact on modern world history and should be included in the category of modern world history. 〔20〕
In addition to the above problems, some scholars have made textual research on the number of countries participating in World War I. Some people think that the number of countries participating in World War I is 39 [2 1], some people think it is 36 [22], and others think it should be 37 [23].