[Menes]

Sorry again, but for another work on WW1 I can recommend Margaret MacMillan’s book “The War that ended Peace”, which is critical towards all of the Powers in 1914.

It is indeed a fascinating and scholarly work.

I haven’t read Fromkin’s book, which you have been quoting, but I’ve read critiques that it is rather biased.

Needless to say, neocon (= always Germanophobic and Russophobic) organs like New Criterion, The Wilson Quarterly and Foreign Affairs praised it (even though the WQ had some reserves), but German critics were not so enthusiastic:

Volker Ullrich, a pupil of Fritz Fischer, btw (and just as politically biased), was not too satisfied with Frumkin’s work: he considered the theses of Frumkin too farfetched - and he didn’t like the presentation of the July Crisis in form of a “diary” for dramatic effect. In Ullrich’s opinion this “diary effect” was not really helpful for the factual analysis of the events in the July crisis.

His biggest criticism was, however, the fact that Fromkin used no German (primary) sources at all, quoting only from English ones, which were often a bit lacking in scholarliness.

Klaus Hildebrand, another historian, was very disappointed with Fromkin’s book: he also considers the author’s theses unconvincing, especially that the war had not been caused by the crisis in the Balkans.

Furthermore, Hildebrand considered Fr.s statements generally “rather disjointed, superficial and laborious”.

Another criticism was that Fromkin distinguishes too little between important and less important points, as well as - worst of all - employing far too little scholarly literature as sources ( similar to Ullrich).

So much about that.

[BroJoeK]

Menes: "Sorry again, but for another work on WW1 I can recommend Margaret MacMillan’s book “The War that ended Peace”, which is critical towards all of the Powers in 1914.
It is indeed a fascinating and scholarly work."

Of course, it's easy to be critical and doubtless all deserve some criticism.
But the fact remains that except for the Kaiser and his government, all were responding to German threats and actions.
All through June, July and August, 1914, the German Government pushed Austria into war with Serbia and then launched its own Schlieffen plan against France and Russia.

One important detail Fromkin's book shows us is that, at the very moment of crisis, July 28, 1914, the Kaiser himself wanted to back away from war and negotiate a peace between Austria and Serbia, but his orders were disobeyed by his own officials, notably:

1. Chancellor Bethmann
2. Foreign minister Jagow
3. War Minister Falkenhayn
4. Chief of the General Staff von Moltke (the Younger)

In von Moltke's case, when the Kaiser told him to change the Schlieffen plan and send all German forces against Russia, von Moltke claimed the plan could not be changed without creating logistical and tactical chaos (page 140 in my edition).

In Austria it was no different -- Foreign minister Berchtold got the reluctant Emperor Franz Joseph's approval for a declaration of war on Serbia by lying to the emperor about a border incident in which Austrian troops fired on Serbs.

All of these are matters of historical fact, not some "far-fetched theses".

Menes: "Volker Ullrich, a pupil of Fritz Fischer, btw (and just as politically biased), was not too satisfied with Frumkin’s work: he considered the theses of Frumkin too farfetched"

I have no idea what "theses" he considers "too farfetched", I'm talking about simple historical facts based on documents in various archives.

Menes: "Klaus Hildebrand, another historian, was very disappointed with Fromkin’s book: he also considers the author’s theses unconvincing, especially that the war had not been caused by the crisis in the Balkans."

If that's truly what your historian Hildebrand said, then he didn't bother to read Fromkin's book, and was simply throwing out trash-talk.
In fact, there is no possible way to tell the story of 1914 without focusing on the central actions in the Balkins.
That said, none of those Balkan actors declared war on Russia or France, or invaded Luxembourg and Belgium, and those are the actions which turned a local dispute into a World War.

By the way, it's kind of important to remember that by the time Germany began declaring war on its neighbors, the Kaiser already well understood that Britain would come to the defense of Belgium and France.
Full well knowing, the Kaiser chose to declare war anyway, saying:

"For I no longer have any doubt that England, Russia and France have agreed among themselves — knowing that our treaty obligations compel us to support Austria — to use the Austro-Serb conflict as a pretext for waging a war of annihilation against us ...
Our dilemma over keeping faith with the old and honourable Emperor has been exploited to create a situation which gives England the excuse she has been seeking to annihilate us with a spurious appearance of justice on the pretext that she is helping France and maintaining the well-known Balance of Power in Europe, i.e., playing off all European States for her own benefit against us.[72]"

All of the Kaiser's words here are lies and nonsense, but they prove WWI was not an accident!

Menes: "Furthermore, Hildebrand considered Fr.s statements generally “rather disjointed, superficial and laborious”."

I consider such words to be mere trash-talk, of no value in any conversation, and hopefully not typical of what passes for scholarship in academia these days.

Menes: "Another criticism was that Fromkin distinguishes too little between important and less important points, as well as - worst of all - employing far too little scholarly literature as sources ( similar to Ullrich)."

And still more trash-talk about Fromkin's book, which was written for a popular audience -- like yours truly, BroJoeK -- in English, which I understand rather well, rather than in German, which I nicht verstehen so gut.

And, again, none of that matters for our purposes here, because we are only reviewing the facts, not "farfetched theses" or "scholarly literature".

Of course, who knows, perhaps these days not everybody is as concerned with mere facts as I am?