Who was the right side of WW1 -

Slap47

Hehe xd
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
United Kingdom, 2/5 Villainy: The British failed to their honor secret agreement with France, and only entered war due to public agreement with Belgium. The British made secret treaties throughout the war that were all dishonored. This lead to a century of chaos in places such as the middle-east. Their propaganda machine was the best and lied the most. For example, the German decision to execute nurses for spying was the centerpiece of British propaganda but those nurses actually were spies. The British executed German nurses who were spies and the Germans simply admitted they were spies.

French Republic, 1/5 Villainy: Was invaded by Germany based on the understanding that France would support Russia based on their alliance. France had very little revanchism regarding Alsace Lorraine at this point and their alliance was entirely defensive. Large portions of France were occupied and made uninhabitable as the result of the war. The French were "bled white" by the war and wanted Germany harshly punished. After the war they occupied Germany to extract reparations but abandoned that program for delayed payments. They used the war to expand their empire.

German Empire, 4/5 Villainy: Kaiser Wilhelm irresponsibly declared that he would support Austria. This blank cheque empowered Austria-Hungary to act push for war. During the war the Germans were the first to commit war crimes via chemical weapons and unrestricted submarine warfare. The German high command were strongly influenced by the ideas of Lebensraum and wanted to transform eastern Europe into a feudal society dominated by ethnic Germans. Such societies already existed in the Baltic states. The Germans actively sabotaged their economy to avoid paying war reparations.

Austro-Hungarian Empire, 4/5 Villainy: Konrad Von Hotsendorf, his general staff the Hungarian parliament wanted to dominate the slavs. They intentionally made overbearing demands that would be rejected and were surprised when all but one was denied. They went to war anyway and their army was crippled due to ethnic conflicts within the military. They had expected to get their way as they were the only great power to not have used their one free pass to get whatever they want during a crisis. Russia had been able to bully Poland, France was given a pass during the Morocco crisis, etc.

Ottoman Empire, 5/5 Villainy: The Ottomans were forced into the war by a clique of officers who orchestrated an attack on Russia. These officers mismanaged the army. Envar Pasha lost a whole army invading the Caucasian mountains during the winter without the proper equipment. The Ottomans were crushed at Suez but were able to survive thanks to the leadership of Attaturk. The bad situation of the war was blamed on ethnic minorities instead of mismanagement. This resulted in several genocides against groups like the Greeks, Armenians, and Assyrians. The Armenian genocide was used to create the word genocide.

Russian Empire, 3/5 Villainy: Russia was the protector of the Slavs and so declared war on Austria in defense of Serbia. They were allied with France to contain Germany. Germany declared war on Russia and annihilated the Russian military over the course of 3 years. The Czar was incompetent and being cucked by a magical homeless man but he meant well. He willingly conceded power but foolishly remained in the country. His oppressive empire was replaced by the just as oppressive USSR.

United States of America , 0/5 Villainy: Germany began sinking American shipping as part of their policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. This policy resulted in the sinking of civilian ships (that were carrying weapons). The Germans also violated the Monroe doctrine by trying to manipulate Mexico into fighting the USA. It is very unlikely that these were the reasons as few people wanted war despite these atrocities and violations of American honor. Regardless, the USA funded the allied effort through loans and finished off Germany with their soldiers. The US policy during the treaty of Versailles was the promotion of national self-determination and democracy. After the war the USA went to great efforts to stabilize Europe through economic schemes and diplomatic intervention.



The Central Powers seem to be the bad guys. They lack war justification and were more willing to commit war-crimes. All of the powers were empires to some degree but the amount of racial domination and genocide displayed by the central powers is clearly worse. Russia was the most autocratic of the great powers but their war aims were in honor of agreements that were known to all. Their entry into the war as the result of Austro-Hungarian aggression and foolishness. Germany's strike first strategy was defensive in nature but it was the incompetence of their leadership that enabled the war to begin with. It should be noted that the majority of the population in all of these nations did not desire war.


Probably one of the biggest crimes done to a nation in recent history was what happened to Germany after the first world war.

And its hard to view the players in WW1 without bringing up WW2 considering the second is a direct result of the resolution of the first. So yeah the allies were pretty terrible to be able to do what they did to Germany.

Now yeah the Germans in WW1 were the first to use poison gas and I think they had did some mass rapings but it was total war. All is fair in love and war :smug:

Germany was treated relatively well by the war. The inflation crisis was caused by bad monetary policy, not war debts. Those debts were also justified due to them actually invading other countries. Their borders were left relatively untouched and the USA even offered them generous loans to finance their ruined economy.

What did Germany do exactly to be held responsible for paying reparations to affected countries?

Pushing Austria-Hungary into declaring war, declaring war on other great powers, invading neutral minor countries and committing atrocities.
 
Last edited:

5t3n0g0ph3r

Resident Archivist
Local Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Germany certainly get blame for the war because it was the only country in the Central Powers that was taken care of business. Austria declared war on Serbia, Germany stepped in when Russia got involve and so did France because of their alliance they had with Russia. England saw Germany as a new dangerous rival and France was still pissed about losing the Franco-Prussian War in the early 1870s. Now if Germany didn't invade Belgium, England might of stay out of the war entirely. The Zimmermann Letter was foolish on the Germans because they thought they could entice the Mexicans to invade the American Southwest, California and Texas. The Mexicans simply didn't have the resources to invade and occupied land in the United States.

We're not even going to mention the "Old Man of Europe," the Ottoman Empire....

Everyone forgets Japan fought in WW1 on the side of the allies, got fucked by the League of Nations, which led to changing sides in WW2.

Italy jumped in from being neutral to siding with the Allies because they wanted a say on the negotiation table.
They ended up receiving some land as promised in The Treaty of London but not northern Dalmatia nor Fiume.
The Italians were butthurt over that.
 
Last edited:

Dom Cruise

I'll fucking Mega your ass, bitch!
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
My impression is that there was no real "right side" in WW1, the whole thing was just a clusterfuck.

Honestly? I think one of the reasons the war happened was there was all this new military technology and the leaders in Europe simply wanted to use it.... because it was cool, because they just wanted to see what would happen.

Not to mention the usual phenomenon of war as business which pushes governments towards getting their hands dirty over pursuing peace.

If anything it shows how little the elites of the world really care for the common man that they would allow such a massive loss of life to happen for no real good reason.

I think it's similar reasons to the later US Vietnam and Iraq wars, an opportunity to use new toys and make profit.
 

Slap47

Hehe xd
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
If anything it shows how little the elites of the world really care for the common man that they would allow such a massive loss of life to happen for no real good reason.

An odd thing about the war is that the aristocratic class was basically nuked by the war in every country. Officers were wiped out due to the tradition of leading from the front in bright clearly marked uniforms.
 

5t3n0g0ph3r

Resident Archivist
Local Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
If anything it shows how little the elites of the world really care for the common man that they would allow such a massive loss of life to happen for no real good reason.

The Crimean War was worse.
On the onset, you would think this was about the Russian Orthodox Church and controlling churches in Jerusalem (which never got resolved).
Yet, the leaders of both sides MUTUALLY agreed to fight in Crimea like it was a sporting event instead of treating it like a traditional war.
It was senseless. The only thing lost was the soldiers' lives. Dumb, dumb, dumb war.
 

MrJokerRager

Moar Big Boobs and Trump 2024
kiwifarms.net
Same thing happened to Italy, more or less.

The whole war was a senseless waste and ended up creating more problems than it solved, some of which still persist over a century later
Hmm, in human life yes. But also created the modern world as we know it and its problems like the middle east. And it ended the aristocracy and kingdoms for fascism and communism. It was the beginning of the end for the age of empires and colonialism. They got swapped out for foreign aid and interventions. Battlefield 1 had definitely taught me a lot about the war and how important it is to create the world as we know it today.
 

DJ Grelle

MONKE leader of GANG RETARD
kiwifarms.net
The blame of WW1 lies 100% with the Russians. Their decision to support the Serbians (on a whim, there was no treaty between Serbia and Russia before that) led to A-H declaring war after Serbia refused their 'ultimatum'. The Serbians were about to concede to the demands the Austrians made, which were not too harsh contrary to popular belief. What A-H demanded was to a) have their own police do the investigation, even in Serbia, and b) the Serbian government wouldn't assist the terrorists. Not unreasonable when the heir to the throne was killed. The archduke was also known for his progressive views on the question of nationalities (he would probably have federalized A-H). A man in which a lot of hope and trust was placed, and then he was killed by a Serbian nationalist. Can you see how this requires assertive action from the Austrian side to be a good response towards both the rest of Europe and the minorities inside the empire?

The guy who has 99% of the blame would probably be Alfred Redl, a gay, jewish traitor who sold the Austrian war plans for Serbia to the Russians, who gave the plans to the Serbs. This led to the disastrous Austrian offensive into Serbia. Austrian success early in the war would have an unbelievable domino effect over the rest of the war that him not being a traitor could change the entire outcome. Imagine if the German divisions detached from the west front to be sent east were replaced by Austrian divisions. This means no "miracle on the Marne" and Germany taking Paris towards the end of 1914. France without Paris is GG for the western allies. Britain can hold out but they cant invade the continent. German victory in the east would be a certainty.

The guy who has 98% of the blame is Alfred Harmsworth, a British """"journalist""" and newspaper owner who was extremely anti-German. His popular press dominated British public opinion in the late 19th and early 20th century and was decisive in turning British public opinion against the Germans. The idea of Germany as warmongers was something he came up with. Before WW1, it was France that were the traditional warmongers of Europe. Germany was seen as the industrial and intellectual powerhouse of the continent. f.e. almost all historiographical theory came from Germany. This was the reason why Versailles was seen as a humiliation. Germany was baptized as the warmonger, the destructive brute which could destroy and do nothing more. Centuries of reputation for intellectual rigor and industriousness wiped out by four years of war and a single perfidious Albion.

To say Germany was the villain in WW1 is evidence for nothing but ignorance.
 

Dom Cruise

I'll fucking Mega your ass, bitch!
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
The blame of WW1 lies 100% with the Russians. Their decision to support the Serbians (on a whim, there was no treaty between Serbia and Russia before that) led to A-H declaring war after Serbia refused their 'ultimatum'. The Serbians were about to concede to the demands the Austrians made, which were not too harsh contrary to popular belief. What A-H demanded was to a) have their own police do the investigation, even in Serbia, and b) the Serbian government wouldn't assist the terrorists. Not unreasonable when the heir to the throne was killed. The archduke was also known for his progressive views on the question of nationalities (he would probably have federalized A-H). A man in which a lot of hope and trust was placed, and then he was killed by a Serbian nationalist. Can you see how this requires assertive action from the Austrian side to be a good response towards both the rest of Europe and the minorities inside the empire?

The guy who has 99% of the blame would probably be Alfred Redl, a gay, jewish traitor who sold the Austrian war plans for Serbia to the Russians, who gave the plans to the Serbs. This led to the disastrous Austrian offensive into Serbia. Austrian success early in the war would have an unbelievable domino effect over the rest of the war that him not being a traitor could change the entire outcome. Imagine if the German divisions detached from the west front to be sent east were replaced by Austrian divisions. This means no "miracle on the Marne" and Germany taking Paris towards the end of 1914. France without Paris is GG for the western allies. Britain can hold out but they cant invade the continent. German victory in the east would be a certainty.

The guy who has 98% of the blame is Alfred Harmsworth, a British """"journalist""" and newspaper owner who was extremely anti-German. His popular press dominated British public opinion in the late 19th and early 20th century and was decisive in turning British public opinion against the Germans. The idea of Germany as warmongers was something he came up with. Before WW1, it was France that were the traditional warmongers of Europe. Germany was seen as the industrial and intellectual powerhouse of the continent. f.e. almost all historiographical theory came from Germany. This was the reason why Versailles was seen as a humiliation. Germany was baptized as the warmonger, the destructive brute which could destroy and do nothing more. Centuries of reputation for intellectual rigor and industriousness wiped out by four years of war and a single perfidious Albion.

To say Germany was the villain in WW1 is evidence for nothing but ignorance.

One funny thing that works against Germany's favor is simple optics, their style of military dress at the time with the spiked hats and whatnot makes them easy to paint as the bad guys in the war because they simply look villainous.

It's the same deal with World War 2, everything about the Nazi aesthetics simply looks villainous and even more so than WW1.

I get you want your military to look like badasses, but that backfires when you make yourself look so badass it's easy to be painted in propaganda as the bad guys.

It may sound crazy, but you really can't underestimate the power aesthetics have over people.
 

DJ Grelle

MONKE leader of GANG RETARD
kiwifarms.net
One funny thing that works against Germany's favor is simple optics, their style of military dress at the time with the spiked hats and whatnot makes them easy to paint as the bad guys in the war because they simply look villainous.

It's the same deal with World War 2, everything about the Nazi aesthetics simply looks villainous and even more so than WW1.

I get you want your military to look like badasses, but that backfires when you make yourself look so badass it's easy to be painted in propaganda as the bad guys.

It may sound crazy, but you really can't underestimate the power aesthetics have over people.
Hard disagree.
You're projecting modern day sensibilities about traditional German military dress on the past. It looks villainous? The pickelhaube isn't any more villainous than the bearskins of the British grenadiers. Same for ww2 dress uniforms. Modern day society is built on nazis=bad and you thinking the uniforms look evil are simply an extension of that. What part is more villainous than other countries uniforms? The swastika? That had a whole different meaning pre ww2. The imperial German eagle? Just a bird. The SS collar runes? How is that different from say; the red/green and grenade of the legion etrangere? The skull and crossbones? A symbol used by many nations.
German uniforms did not look more or less villainous than other uniforms. How do you think redcoats looked for Boers or the blue/red combo for the Vietnamese?
 

Syaoran Li

Mayberry's Most Wanted
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
One funny thing that works against Germany's favor is simple optics, their style of military dress at the time with the spiked hats and whatnot makes them easy to paint as the bad guys in the war because they simply look villainous.

It's the same deal with World War 2, everything about the Nazi aesthetics simply looks villainous and even more so than WW1.

I get you want your military to look like badasses, but that backfires when you make yourself look so badass it's easy to be painted in propaganda as the bad guys.

It may sound crazy, but you really can't underestimate the power aesthetics have over people.

You actually do kind of have a point.

The Imperial German aesthetics ultimately made for bad optics when combined with the German Army's conduct in the ostensibly "neutral" country of Belgium, the sinking of the Lusitania, the rapid technological advancement of the German military that seemingly appeared out of nowhere, and good ol' fashioned 1910's Yellow Journalism.

Imagine the sight of a large well-trained army men rampage through a nominally neutral country mainly known for beer and waffles, and whose only real imperial possession is the Congo all while wearing dark gray uniforms with Pickelhauben and heavily armed with some of the most advanced small arms and artillery in Europe at the time.

Or as one cultural icon would put it...

Homer Simpson said:
The British tabloids would have a field day!

Seriously, the yellow journalists of the early 20th Century make the clickbait mills of the 2010's look truthful and unbiased by comparison.

Hard disagree.
You're projecting modern day sensibilities about traditional German military dress on the past. It looks villainous? The pickelhaube isn't any more villainous than the bearskins of the British grenadiers. Same for ww2 dress uniforms. Modern day society is built on nazis=bad and you thinking the uniforms look evil are simply an extension of that. What part is more villainous than other countries uniforms? The swastika? That had a whole different meaning pre ww2. The imperial German eagle? Just a bird. The SS collar runes? How is that different from say; the red/green and grenade of the legion etrangere? The skull and crossbones? A symbol used by many nations.
German uniforms did not look more or less villainous than other uniforms. How do you think redcoats looked for Boers or the blue/red combo for the Vietnamese?

Again, it's the aesthetics when specifically paired with the yellow journalism and print propaganda of the time.

The news about the sinking of the Lusitania and the invasion of Belgium whipped the British and American public into a frenzy despite the glaring omissions of their coverage. That's without taking into account the more egregious propaganda of the time.

Plus, the German aesthetics of WWI were visually impressive in a way that the garish blue uniforms of the French or the bland khakhi of the British Army were not, and became even more impressive when they replaced the old Pickelhauben for the far more practical Stahlhelm early on in the war.

Had it not been for the sensationalist coverage of the war, those aesthetics would've been viewed in the same context as the old redcoats and bearskin hats.

Ironically, the sensationalism and propaganda of WWI ended up making the Western Allies more jaded and less willing to believe the extremes of Nazi crimes against civilians in WWII.

Until the camps were actually discovered by Allied troops in 1945 and the world saw those horrors with their own eyes, a lot of people in Britain and the United States thought the Holocaust was merely a bunch of crazy rumors or exaggerations to drum up war support.
 
Last edited:

Shadfan666xxx000

kiwifarms.net
Hard disagree.
You're projecting modern day sensibilities about traditional German military dress on the past. It looks villainous? The pickelhaube isn't any more villainous than the bearskins of the British grenadiers. Same for ww2 dress uniforms. Modern day society is built on nazis=bad and you thinking the uniforms look evil are simply an extension of that. What part is more villainous than other countries uniforms? The swastika? That had a whole different meaning pre ww2. The imperial German eagle? Just a bird. The SS collar runes? How is that different from say; the red/green and grenade of the legion etrangere? The skull and crossbones? A symbol used by many nations.
German uniforms did not look more or less villainous than other uniforms. How do you think redcoats looked for Boers or the blue/red combo for the Vietnamese?
Nigger, there's a spike in his hat.
 

millais

The Yellow Rose of Victoria, Texas
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
The "human soap" meme actually started in WWI, but back then it was being falsely claimed that the Germans were rendering their own battlefield dead into soap to get around lard shortages from the British blockade.

It's no wonder people were initially skeptical of the Holohoax twenty years later when they had already been fooled by the Allied propaganda machine the first time around.
 

Dom Cruise

I'll fucking Mega your ass, bitch!
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Hard disagree.
You're projecting modern day sensibilities about traditional German military dress on the past. It looks villainous? The pickelhaube isn't any more villainous than the bearskins of the British grenadiers. Same for ww2 dress uniforms. Modern day society is built on nazis=bad and you thinking the uniforms look evil are simply an extension of that. What part is more villainous than other countries uniforms? The swastika? That had a whole different meaning pre ww2. The imperial German eagle? Just a bird. The SS collar runes? How is that different from say; the red/green and grenade of the legion etrangere? The skull and crossbones? A symbol used by many nations.
German uniforms did not look more or less villainous than other uniforms. How do you think redcoats looked for Boers or the blue/red combo for the Vietnamese?

And I'm gonna have to hard disagree right back, German military uniforms were pretty clearly designed to be a little more intimidating than average, you comparing the British bearskin hat to the pickelhaube and saying you don't see a difference? Come on now, that should be obvious, one of them has a spike ie you could kill someone with part of the dress alone, which I'm pretty sure you couldn't do with a bearskin hat, if that's not more intimidation I don't know what is.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying stuff like the pickelhaube isn't cool, it's cool as hell, but that's the thing, it might have done it's job a little too well.
 

Webby's Boyfriend

reality cartoonist
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Well, as you ones may know my current waifu is a 15 year old lass who fought in World War 1 on site of the Entente powers in an alternate timeline. In her world, the Great War lasted only 1 year instead of 4, it ended with the Co-Existence Treaty of 1915. Likely because everyone realized how pointless that war was, both in our and her timeline. Also she fell in love with the Austro-Hungarian prince. I hope he doesn't find out!

So yeah, no one was good or evil, World War 1 was totally pointless in every way.
 

Harlay de Champvallon

Archevêque de Paris, Duc de Saint-Cloud
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Not to mention the Spanish Flu epidemic occurred in the waning days of the war.
That must have sucked.
In its ultimate origin, some suggest that too was a Chinese albeit not a bio-engined weapon. The new Chinese Republic wasn't malevolent, and couldn't anyhow.

Woodrow Wilson was the real demon. This segregator of the US Army, ripped up ancient polities, inspired by a mendacious 'small nations' idea. None of these lands could be divided up neatly, and irrendentism, while not a cause, gave fuel to the troubles of the 1930s and WW2.
 
Last edited:

Phallicus the Girthy

kiwifarms.net
The blame of WW1 lies 100% with the Russians. Their decision to support the Serbians (on a whim, there was no treaty between Serbia and Russia before that) led to A-H declaring war after Serbia refused their 'ultimatum'.

You can hardly call it a whim. Even putting aside Russia's animosity towards Austria-Hungary after getting back stabbed in the Crimean war and Russia's fairly consistent Balkan and Pan-Slavic Policies over most of the previous century their relationship with Serbia was hardly a secret. Since 1903 Russia and Serbia had close economic and diplomatic ties. This included Serbia receiving significant diplomatic and economic aid during a trade war with Austria-Hungary. That Russia would support Serbia was considered a virtual certainty by the Central Powers themselves.

Before Russia officially announced support for Serbia, Zimmerman already predicted with what he termed a "90%" certainty that military action against Serbia would induce a war with France and Russia. In A-H though the Foreign Minister Leopold Berchtold also viewed a war with Russia as the natural result of any action against Serbia to the extend that he asked Hötzendorf to prepare for a major war at the beginning of July. Germany and A-H clearly didn't think that Russia's support was unlikely aside from a mere "whim".

The Serbians were about to concede to the demands the Austrians made, which were not too harsh contrary to popular belief. What A-H demanded was to a) have their own police do the investigation, even in Serbia, and b) the Serbian government wouldn't assist the terrorists. Not unreasonable when the heir to the throne was killed.

If the Serbians were actually about to agree to the demands then you've shot your own argument in the foot. It was the Austro-Hungarians which broke off diplomatic contact with Serbia before the war and not the other way around. In reality though Serbia had agreed to other terms but asked for arbitration from the Hague on the terms that you noted. Incidentally, that was when Austria-Hungary cut off contact with Serbia rather than respond to this request. It should also be noted that Russia had also asked for international arbitration from the Hague with the Tsar even asking the Kaiser personally in a telegram.

Let's say that Serbia agreed whole heatedly to the terms though. That wasn't the desired outcome of A-H. Repeatedly on record Austro-Hungarian ministers noted that the ultimatum was written to be rejected. Most notably this was the view of Berchtold himself. From the 7th of July the Austro-Hungarian cabinet had agreed that a "great show of force" was their desired outcome of the crisis with it being acknowledged that a war with Serbia would be most likely be undertaken. So, what if Serbia had accepted all the demands? The A-H ambassador to Serbia, Von Geisl, was instructed to break off contact no-matter the Serbian response. Anything other than an unconditional acceptance constituting an immediate justification for war. This raises two points. Firstly, it would probably have been nice for Serbia to know that asking for arbitration would be considered justification for war. Secondly, even Serbia's acceptance would likely have led to their invasion though justified in a more roundabout way. Then again there was also Germany's ultimatum to Russia over mobilization. Maybe that would have served as a straightforward pretext?
 

soy_king

Rule of Daxquisition Number 817: Always be seethin
kiwifarms.net
United Kingdom, 2/5 Villainy: The British failed to their honor secret agreement with France, and only entered war due to public agreement with Belgium. The British made secret treaties throughout the war that were all dishonored. This lead to a century of chaos in places such as the middle-east. Their propaganda machine was the best and lied the most. For example, the German decision to execute nurses for spying was the centerpiece of British propaganda but those nurses actually were spies. The British executed German nurses who were spies and the Germans simply admitted they were spies.

French Republic, 1/5 Villainy: Was invaded by Germany based on the understanding that France would support Russia based on their alliance. France had very little revanchism regarding Alsace Lorraine at this point and their alliance was entirely defensive. Large portions of France were occupied and made uninhabitable as the result of the war. The French were "bled white" by the war and wanted Germany harshly punished. After the war they occupied Germany to extract reparations but abandoned that program for delayed payments. They used the war to expand their empire.

German Empire, 4/5 Villainy: Kaiser Wilhelm irresponsibly declared that he would support Austria. This blank cheque empowered Austria-Hungary to act push for war. During the war the Germans were the first to commit war crimes via chemical weapons and unrestricted submarine warfare. The German high command were strongly influenced by the ideas of Lebensraum and wanted to transform eastern Europe into a feudal society dominated by ethnic Germans. Such societies already existed in the Baltic states. The Germans actively sabotaged their economy to avoid paying war reparations.

Austro-Hungarian Empire, 4/5 Villainy: Konrad Von Hotsendorf, his general staff the Hungarian parliament wanted to dominate the slavs. They intentionally made overbearing demands that would be rejected and were surprised when all but one was denied. They went to war anyway and their army was crippled due to ethnic conflicts within the military. They had expected to get their way as they were the only great power to not have used their one free pass to get whatever they want during a crisis. Russia had been able to bully Poland, France was given a pass during the Morocco crisis, etc.

Ottoman Empire, 5/5 Villainy: The Ottomans were forced into the war by a clique of officers who orchestrated an attack on Russia. These officers mismanaged the army. Envar Pasha lost a whole army invading the Caucasian mountains during the winter without the proper equipment. The Ottomans were crushed at Suez but were able to survive thanks to the leadership of Attaturk. The bad situation of the war was blamed on ethnic minorities instead of mismanagement. This resulted in several genocides against groups like the Greeks, Armenians, and Assyrians. The Armenian genocide was used to create the word genocide.

Russian Empire, 3/5 Villainy: Russia was the protector of the Slavs and so declared war on Austria in defense of Serbia. They were allied with France to contain Germany. Germany declared war on Russia and annihilated the Russian military over the course of 3 years. The Czar was incompetent and being cucked by a magical homeless man but he meant well. He willingly conceded power but foolishly remained in the country. His oppressive empire was replaced by the just as oppressive USSR.

United States of America , 0/5 Villainy: Germany began sinking American shipping as part of their policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. This policy resulted in the sinking of civilian ships (that were carrying weapons). The Germans also violated the Monroe doctrine by trying to manipulate Mexico into fighting the USA. It is very unlikely that these were the reasons as few people wanted war despite these atrocities and violations of American honor. Regardless, the USA funded the allied effort through loans and finished off Germany with their soldiers. The US policy during the treaty of Versailles was the promotion of national self-determination and democracy. After the war the USA went to great efforts to stabilize Europe through economic schemes and diplomatic intervention.



The Central Powers seem to be the bad guys. They lack war justification and were more willing to commit war-crimes. All of the powers were empires to some degree but the amount of racial domination and genocide displayed by the central powers is clearly worse. Russia was the most autocratic of the great powers but their war aims were in honor of agreements that were known to all. Their entry into the war as the result of Austro-Hungarian aggression and foolishness. Germany's strike first strategy was defensive in nature but it was the incompetence of their leadership that enabled the war to begin with. It should be noted that the majority of the population in all of these nations did not desire war.




Germany was treated relatively well by the war. The inflation crisis was caused by bad monetary policy, not war debts. Those debts were also justified due to them actually invading other countries. Their borders were left relatively untouched and the USA even offered them generous loans to finance their ruined economy.



Pushing Austria-Hungary into declaring war, declaring war on other great powers, invading neutral minor countries and committing atrocities.
Britain and France should at least get another point for willfully violating Greek neutrality and occupying the north of the country to open a front against Bulgaria while creating a second pro Entente government in the North
 
Top