From your perspective, who were the "good guys" in World War I?

[Eurydemus]

A big part of it back then is that when an incident acured, like an assassination, you just had to assume that other countries were mobilizing their troops and rushing to the border. So you mobilized your troops and rushed them to the border too. A lot of wars started this way.

Well, no, not in general.

But inflexible mobilisation tables certainly had a lot to do with the problem of not being able to stop events from cascading in the summer of 1914. The German Imperial General Staff, in particular, had whole sets of meticulously planned railway schedules to move troops to the front. When Wilhelm II - for all of his bravado and aggressive posturing in the past - tried to stop things at the 11th hour, he was essentially told it was impossible because the trains were already running.

Of course, it wasn't impossible. The staff officer in charge of troop transportation stated after the war that German mobilisation could've been slowed or even halted. But the German General Staff believed it was better to fight a war with Russia and France sooner rather than later. The reasoning behind it was the belief that the longer Germany waited, the more difficult it would be to win against France and a rapidly modernising Russia. Naturally, this mentality wasn't shared by everybody in Berlin (and certainly not Wilhelm II, who was definitely one befuddled, indecisive, and easily influenced monarch).

[Yvaelle]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that every conflict is/was imperialistic or "bad" in nature, especially in recent times. I think strong arguments can be made that World War II, the defense of Korea, defense of Israel and the First Gulf War were wholly justified.

You're just looking at it from an Allied perspective though. WW2 was about control, influence, and domination - just on the part of the Nazis - the Soviets and the Allied forces pushed back against expanding control and ideology - but the war itself is still about that. Defensive wars are similarly about control and influence - Korea and Israel were controlled by amenable factions, were attacked by opposing factions - jeopardizing control - and opposing ideologies: they are wars to maintain the status quo (of control and ideology) - and they are still about domination, just from the other perspective.

The first gulf war was about Iraq's desire to dominate Kuwait, so that they could better control the world's oil supply, and access to the Persian Gulf. Wars aren't always about America's imperial ambition - but defending the existing status quo is itself about ideology and control - even if ideological ground isn't gained.

In fact, I might argue that the perception of a war-mongering anglosphere that is constantly trying to expand their influence is inaccurate. Their influence is already the dominant force on most of the world - they often fight to maintain their influence and control - but because they win, the value of the perception of 'winning' appears as 'conquering' over new ideas or upstart empires. The anglosphere isn't trying to expand their (already dominant) influence, they are simply trying to maintain their inordinate power in the wake of a constantly changing world: fighting against power entropy.

[Hey There Guys its Metro]

This isn't a fairy tale. There aren't good or bad sides in a war unless you take a vested interested in one sides ideals.

[Nakura Chambers]

This isn't a fairy tale. There aren't good or bad sides in a war unless you take a vested interested in one sides ideals.

Most MMO-Champion members believe that civil liberties (freedom) and representative government are "good." Even those who don't agree with the majority here (see some of our Russian members) certainly hold their own views of morality. Can we not therefore judge combatants using our ideals?

[Stelio Kontos]

Armenians did not die for their blank stare (unlike SOAD claims). Just like Greeks, they've gone too far. I don't think all of them deserved to die but when you declare a war IN Ottoman Land against Turks god damn expect some retaliation. I hope they got their lesson well.

Change Armenians and Greeks to Jews and you have your typical neo-Nazi.

No wonder Mein Kampf was/is such a popular book in Turkey.

[Hanyuu]

"What a cruel thing is war; to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbours, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world." Robert E. Lee.

There are no good guys in war and I voted as such. It is a terrible terrible thing. All it took was the smallest spark to set off a complex web of alliances with each side thinking they were protecting their allies. Everyone loses in a war, most of all the common person fighting it and their families. The only redeeming factor is perhaps the carnage of the first and second world war, helped the west avoid the cold war into becoming a real war--war in the modern age, that is real war with nuclear weapons is terrifying and fills me with trepidation. I am no idealist, I know that war is necessary at times, but I can never be fond of it and can think no country is right in killing his neighbors, even when invaded; we have all these rules on how to live in harmony with each other--but when we go to war they are thrown out the window. Roughly 12 million dead, 12 million mothers with dead sons, and countless more injured both physically and mentally...and for what? Everyone loses in war and there are no sides that are good.

[Kalis]

maybe you should read something about ww2.

And what history book do you propose that I read where Germany doesn't attack Poland?

Anybody stating that the fault of WW2 lies anywhere other than Germany is a revisionist, and should stick to their conspiracy sites.

[Deleted]

The only good guys during WW1, were those nations, who managed to avoid the conflict and spare their Citizens from that Meatgrinder.

[Kruncholyo]

The only good guys during WW1, were those nations, who managed to avoid the conflict and spare their Citizens from that Meatgrinder.

How were Belgium, the Netherlands, and France supposed to avoid millions of Boche troops invading?
France did not provoke Germany. Germany decided that they needed to preemptively activate their war plan (which they then botched by prematurely halting their advance after getting a good way into France).

[Ravenblade]

How were Belgium, the Netherlands, and France supposed to avoid millions of Boche troops invading?
France did not provoke Germany. Germany decided that they needed to preemptively activate their war plan (which they then botched by prematurely halting their advance after getting a good way into France).

Netherlands avoided "millions of Boche troops" invading.

[Eurydemus]

Netherlands avoided "millions of Boche troops" invading.

Only because Schlieffen marked Belgium as the intended path for his very ambitious plan and the Netherlands lucked out by not sharing a border with France.

- - - Updated - - -

The only good guys during WW1, were those nations, who managed to avoid the conflict and spare their Citizens from that Meatgrinder.

There were no good guys or bad guys, in my opinion. The Great War wasn't as clear-cut as WWII where you have the Allies banding together to stop the Nazis from world(ish) domination and genocide.

World War I happened as a result of plenty of pre-war provocations by both sides (mostly by Germany) and paranoia (again, mostly on the part of Germany), but nobody actually set plans into motion to trigger a war in 1914.

[Ravenblade]

Only because Schlieffen marked Belgium as the intended path for his very ambitious plan and the Netherlands lucked out by not sharing a border with France.
[...]

Actually there were plans to attack them but Wilhelm II. personally intervened. Apparently Wilhelm II. had a fair amount of respect for the soldier's queen, she was the only one who tell his blood relative on a visit that she would drown his soldiers if they happened to show up for some size matching. Of course it was a mere joke at that time but given the context it could be seen as one of the reasons why he respected it. But in the same vein he promised King Albert nothing of the kind because their weakness was seen as opportunity.

[Eurydemus]

Actually there were plans to attack them but Wilhelm II. personally intervened. Apparently Wilhelm II. had a fair amount of respect for the soldier's queen, she was the only one who tell his blood relative on a visit that she would drown his soldiers if they happened to show up for some size matching. Of course it was a mere joke at that time but given the context it could be seen as one of the reasons why he respected it. But in the same vein he promised King Albert nothing of the kind because their weakness was seen as opportunity.

Good stuff. None of the books I've read about the Great War happened to mention this off-hand and I've read a large number of books on the subject, so this is nice to know.

[Deleted]

It would have been remarkably simple for Germany not to start the war, they could have not invaded Poland - it's very easy to not invade a country - and by doing so the fault of WW2 lies squarely on them.

OT: There were no 'good guys' as reality isn't black and white. From Britain's point of view, we went to war due to treaties, which is about as close to a noble reason as countries are ever going to get.

WW2 can never be seen without taking WW1 into account. WW1 was a complete and utter catastrophe for everyone involved and saying anything aside from that every side worked towards that conflict is absolutely ridiculous. Pretty much every mayory European country wanted to this war, because they were all convinced that the war could've been won in a matter of days with a decisive victory for their side, nobody anticipated the nightmare of trench warfare they were all getting themselves into.
If anything the time between WW 1 and WW 2 was merely one long ceasefire, because of the way WW 1 ended. Without a decisive military victory, with putting the blame on a single country (something that hadn't happened before), because throughout the entire war the ENTENTE was busy demonizing and dehumanizing their opponents on side of the Central Powers.
Just have a look at some of their propaganda from that time around, you usually find the Central Powers shown as antomorphic animals at best and far worse things at worst. They've been quite busy imprinting on their entire population that their opponents were outright subhuman or not real humans, something a lot of former ENTENTE/Allied countries still have ingrained even now when it comes to their past adversaries especially German, it's not much different from the Nazis and their racial ideology.
Even the war crimes they put on the Central Powers and Axis were commited by them all the same. During WW 1 they used the shootings of nurses who were caught commiting acts of sabotage and helping soldiers escape from behind the front lines as an inhuman monstrous act and made said nurses into national heroes, while engaging in the very same thing themselves.

There weren't any good guys in WW 1 nor in WW 2. They didn't set out to save the jews, hell most of them were even unwilling to take them in when they tried to flee occupied countries, because antisemitism was running rampant with them aswell. It was merely a coincidence and one they milked for all it's propagandistic value.

How were Belgium, the Netherlands, and France supposed to avoid millions of Boche troops invading?
France did not provoke Germany. Germany decided that they needed to preemptively activate their war plan (which they then botched by prematurely halting their advance after getting a good way into France).

Are you kidding me? France had revanchist sentiments ever since they lost the Franco - Prussian war and were preparing for the second round for a long time. If Germany hadn't struck at them, they would've struck at Germany all the same except this time around the war would've been fought on German soil. France in WW 1 wasn't a victim it was one of the main initiators and aggressors alongside Germany, Britain, Italy and Austria-Hungary.

[Eurydemus]

Are you kidding me? France had revanchist sentiments ever since they lost the Franco - Prussian war and were preparing for the second round for a long time. If Germany hadn't struck at them, they would've struck at Germany all the same except this time around the war would've been fought on German soil. France in WW 1 wasn't a victim it was one of the main initiators and aggressors alongside Germany, Britain, Italy and Austria-Hungary.

No, not quite true.

There was definitely revanchism in France over Alsace-Lorraine, but there was also a growing sentiment among non-hardline French politicians that the lands would never be recovered and that accepting the fact was going to be inevitable. It was Bismarck's plan to encourage France to focus on its colonial empire instead of stewing over Alsace-Lorraine and everything was chugging along relatively nicely until Wilhelm sacked him and decided to up-end the apple cart by agreeing to stunts like the Moroccan Crises.

[Deleted]

No, not quite true.

There was definitely revanchism in France over Alsace-Lorraine, but there was also a growing sentiment among non-hardline French politicians that the lands would never be recovered and that accepting the fact was going to be inevitable. It was Bismarck's plan to encourage France to focus on its colonial empire instead of stewing over Alsace-Lorraine and everything was chugging along relatively nicely until Wilhelm sacked him and decided to up-end the apple cart by agreeing to stunts like the Moroccan Crises.

Oh please. France and Germany have been adversaries for a very long time and while there might've been some sentiment to accept the loss that was far from mayority opinion. The revanchist sentiment came up as soon as the war ended and in large parts of the populace it festered for a long time. France was as interested in this was as everyone else, every side had people who'd rather avoid it and in hindsight they were obviously right.

What you are partly ignoring is that the Central Powers for a long time felt threatened and constrained by basically being closed in and their fears weren't completely unjustified either. The Russian - French alliance only made this all that much worse.

[Dreknar20]

Was it not somewhat a self-fulfilling prophecy for Germany.
Germany feared being ganged up on. But a Germany that can take on Europe by itself can beat anyones ass one on one, making it more likely alliances will take place.

[Eurydemus]

Oh please. France and Germany have been adversaries for a very long time and while there might've been some sentiment to accept the loss that was far from mayority opinion. The revanchist sentiment came up as soon as the war ended and in large parts of the populace it festered for a long time. France was as interested in this was as everyone else, every side had people who'd rather avoid it and in hindsight they were obviously right.

What you are partly ignoring is that the Central Powers for a long time felt threatened and constrained by basically being closed in and their fears weren't completely unjustified either. The Russian - French alliance only made this all that much worse.

Adversaries? Yes. But there were moves to better relations between the two countries even if Alsace-Lorraine were sticking points. Hell, even the First Morocco Crisis was resolved fairly amiably. Things only started coming to head during the Second Crisis and by then, Britain had shown it was willing to support the French in the face of war. I'm not saying the French had no interest in fighting a war, but they definitely weren't initiators or aggressors like you were suggesting.

And it was more so Germany than the Central Powers as a whole who were afraid of being hemmed in, plus it was far from a certainty before Bismarck left office. You could also make an argument for Austria-Hungary, but if the Austrians had observed their agreement with Russia over Bosnia-Herzegovina, they wouldn't have had to worry about the Russians aggressively playing ball in Vienna's backyard.

Anyway, it was partly Germany's fault for allowing the last iteration of the Dreikaiserbund to lapse, which Bismarck was very careful to maintain (talk about shooting yourself in the foot). If Wilhelm II hadn't allowed the league with Russia to expire, France probably wouldn't have had an ally in the east.

Point being, I don't buy France - or any of the powers involved - as aggressors. The steps leading up to 1914 were full of diplomatic missteps (most German), but there's no single power or group of powers that went out of the way to start the conflagration, even though they might've thought such a struggle would benefit them. I'm of the opinion the Great War was a catastrophic accident brought about by bad judgement, bad timing, and unfounded fatalism and that no one party can or should be blamed.

[Bakis]

In a complete meltdown for common sense and diplomacy on all parties involved and add to that seriously unhealthy dose of nationalism in the countries involved it is pretty accurate to say none were. It could have been avoided.

[Marrilaife]

"From your perspective, who were the "good guys" in World War I?"

There are no good guys in wars.

Even if one side starts as "more evil", the aggressor, soon everyone will try every underhanded tactic just to not be beaten by the other side. Even if one side commits more "war crimes" and atrocities, doesn't make everyone else a "good guy".

You could maybe argue about lesser evils etc. But about "good guys", there are none in war and politics. And if there are, they die / get kicked out fast.

Funny how in my country (Poland) we celebrate the end of 1st world war as the day we regained our country, but as soon as we did some politicians had an idea to start another war (3-4 years later). I'm glad these days starting a random war is frowned upon, unlike thousands of years of history where it was like "short on money? have unemployment problems? politicians have too big ambitions? go start a war and grab yourself some land and loot".

Back then people were really giddy to start wars, at least the national leaders, weapon industry, generals etc., because obviously not the common folk that died in thousands and millions for someone's fancy ideas. The horrors of 20th century taught at least European leaders that war is best avoided, and then still we have places like former Yugoslavia or Ukraine where people die because someone on top had "reasons" to start up some war.