Who were the 'bad guys' in WW1? (2024)

Prince Eugene said:

Unlike in WW2 where we all know Hitler and friends are evil, I find the subject of WW1 up for discussion. Was it the Entente for taking an interventionist stance? Was it the Central Powers for acting harshly against Serbia? Was it Serbia for supporting the assassins and not backing down? Discuss.

Click to expand...

Aren't you really asking about which countries bear responsibility for the war rather than which were the "bad guys" or "evil"?

bear responsibility: germany, because they foolishly thought, they could challenge britain's dominion over the seas unpunished; because encouraged austria to be reckless against serbia and russia; because they never tried to reconciliate with france.

bad guys: germany again, because of the invasion of belgium, and the introduction of gas warfare.

no fault lies with serbia. the government never endorsed the assassination. they even complied to almost all the demands of the austrian ultimatum, even though they were intentionally outrageously unacceptable. if anything, serbia was the only country that desperately tried to avoid war.

Apollon said:

bear responsibility: germany, because they foolishly thought, they could challenge britain's dominion over the seas unpunished; because encouraged austria to be reckless against serbia and russia; because they never tried to reconciliate with france.

bad guys: germany again, because of the invasion of belgium, and the introduction of gas warfare.

no fault lies with serbia. the government never endorsed the assassination. they even complied to almost all the demands of the austrian ultimatum, even though they were intentionally outrageously unacceptable. if anything, serbia was the only country that desperately decided to avoid war.

Click to expand...

I don't think you can really say this or that nation is the 'bad guy' in WW1, who deserved to lose/should have lost. WW1 was a conflict that was not as intentionally provoked as WW2, the outbreak of war was the cause for celebrations in many European capitols. The world was lusting to go to war... young people had been brought up with tales of war and glory, and how great it would be to die for your country. Military parades and nationalist rhethoric was a part of everyday life, and in fact many regarded the long peace before 1914 as a 'stale' peace, as a twisted and sick period of time where people had to live boring, dull lives devoid of all the action and excitement. And of course the vast social changes in every western European country and in Russia were seen by many as disturbing and unnatural, and totally in contrast to the romantic 19th-century world view. Socialism and anarchism were seen as the logical consequence of these unnatural social changes.

When the war came, many saw it as the thunderstorm after a depressingly hot and humid day, as the summer tempest that would clear the air.

Now, goverments may have acted in a manner which we would call irresponsible, and which would today be looked upon as violations of international post-Nuremberg law. But that doesn't mean that these nations were the 'bad guys' in a way that Nazi Germany was the bad guy in WW2.

According to the Treaty of Versailles, Germany takes full blame for the war and is the "bad guy". However...

Austria-Hungary can be blamed for the "blank check", while Russia can be blamed for mobilising, which practically made war a forgone conclusion.

Devil-D said:

According to the Treaty of Versailles, Germany takes full blame for the war and is the "bad guy". However...

Austria-Hungary can be blamed for the "blank check", while Russia can be blamed for mobilising, which practically made war a forgone conclusion.

Click to expand...

I got an inside feeling that if Russia hadn't mobilized Germany would have found another reason to attack and moreover the defeat of Russia would have been so impressive that Russia would have been knocked off from the war within one year.

P.S. Damn, i hate subjunctive mood

Neil said:

Russia and France, although more Russia than France. They went to war for the sake of Serbia, an evil little country that deserved to be beaten by the Austrians. While the poor diplomacy of William II made the situation ripe for such a war, the immediate cause of the war is Russia's mobilization against Germany and Austria.

Click to expand...

So Germany was just a hapless victim that happened to have a war machine prepped and ready for invasion? I don't have a problem with saying others were partly responsible for WWI but not even mentioning Germany is absurd.

WW I wasn't that black and white. Europe in 1914 was a powderkeg, and it was just waiting for something or other to go off. If Ferdinand hadn't been killed, then something else would have brewed up before the decade was out in any event.

Under the circ*mstances, how does one dispense blame?

AugCaesar said:

So Germany was just a hapless victim that happened to have a war machine prepped and ready for invasion? I don't have a problem with saying others were partly responsible for WWI but not even mentioning Germany is absurd.

Click to expand...

Everybody had a war machine ready for invasion. That's why it's not a clean-cut war like WWII. And as I said, poor German diplomacy was responsible for creating a great deal of tension in the lead up. However, the war itself was started by Russian mobilization. It's not like the Germans had a choice at that point. As soon as the Russians mobilized, Germany had to invade France. Of course, they did it in the worst way possible, through Belgium. A quick replay of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 had a chance at a neutral Britain, which means total, utter, smashing victory for the Germans on the continent.

pcasey said:

WW I wasn't that black and white. Europe in 1914 was a powderkeg, and it was just waiting for something or other to go off. If Ferdinand hadn't been killed, then something else would have brewed up before the decade was out in any event.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure about this. We know that William himself would never actually start a war, just to spite the memory of Edward VII, who he saw as a supreme warmonger. Franz Josef wasn't big on risking his ass without German support, and the only reason that he did in 1914 is because it was morally neccessary. Britain and the Ottomans weren't the sort to go out and start fights among the Great Powers. That leaves Italy, who is worthless, and France and Russia. Nicholas II would happily have continued in his program of massive industrialization, provided nobody messed with the Serbs, which noone would have if not for the regicide. That leaves France, who would be likely to take any excuse to attack Germany, but who would have to make it good enough that Russia would join them. Russia wasn't likely to join an aggressive war, despite Nicholas' disdain for William. Germany wasn't going to declare war on France or Russia unless one of them mobilized. Thus, the two main blocs balance each other, with the main stumbling block being the Balkans, which is exactly what did it in the end. Still, without a Serbian-sponsored disaster in the Balkans, a war scenario becomes a lot harder to imagine.

Neil said:

Russia and France, although more Russia than France. They went to war for the sake of Serbia, an evil little country that deserved to be beaten by the Austrians. While the poor diplomacy of William II made the situation ripe for such a war, the immediate cause of the war is Russia's mobilization against Germany and Austria.

Click to expand...

REMARKABLE Pinch me if i am sleeping, who's to blame for every single bad deed on the earth - Russians Jesus, Jesus... And yup, horrible monstrous Serbs are also guilty of plotting a plan to destroy very peaceful country that was Austria. I am seeing it already like Austria with several mln. army is annihilated by Serbs. :rofl:

MRAKoris said:

REMARKABLE Pinch me if i am sleeping, who's to blame for every single bad deed on the earth - Russians Jesus, Jesus... And yup, horrible monstrous Serbs are also guilty of plotting a plan to destroy very peaceful country that was Austria. I am seeing it already like Austria with several mln. army is annihilated by Serbs. :rofl:

Click to expand...

Let's just say that while Austria-Hungary wasn't the most peaceful country on Earth the Serbs weren't lily-white either. And Russia could have needed a victorious war in order to reduce the threat of revolution.

I don't think you can say that one country alone was responsible for the start of WW I. Each power block thought they had something to gain and everybody thought they'd win the war within a few months.

The introduction of gas warfare however is something that one has to blame the Germans for.

Trinitrotoluen said:

Let's just say that while Austria-Hungary wasn't the most peaceful country on Earth the Serbs weren't lily-white either. And Russia could have needed a victorious war in order to reduce the threat of revolution.

I don't think you can say that one country alone was responsible for the start of WW I. Each power block thought they had something to gain and everybody thought they'd win the war within a few months.

The introduction of gas warfare however is something that one has to blame the Germans for.

Click to expand...

Murder of Erzherzog and Austrian threats to Serbia - that what triggered Russian mobilization, 'cos Austria knew it sweetly that Russians wouldn't bear someone's annexing Serbia or threatening it, as a major ally in the Balkans. Then Serbia is evil, oh yes they planned a suicidal (for the country) assassination of Austrian heir. Do you take Serbs for mental retards? And what if that assassin had been Briton? or for instance Bulgarian or Kalmyk? so who would have been to blame for in the way you see it?

MRAKoris said:

Murder of Erzherzog and Austrian threats to Serbia - that what triggered Russian mobilization, 'cos Austria knew it sweetly that Russians wouldn't bear someone's annexing Serbia or threatening it, as a major ally in the Balkans.

Click to expand...

Aha, so Austria planned everything to attack Russia!? Thanks for pointing that out for me....
I do not blame the Serbs, Russians, etc. for everything like you seem to believe but equally you cannot blame everything on Austria.

If you read my previous post you see that I wrote that every power involved thought that it had something to gain and not that it was a Serbian-Russian plot to take over the world.

MRAKoris said:

Then Serbia is evil, oh yes they planned a suicidal (for the country) assassination of Austrian heir. Do you take Serbs for mental retards? And what if that assassin had been Briton? or for instance Bulgarian or Kalmyk? so who would have been to blame for in the way you see it?

Click to expand...

I did not say that the Serbian government planned the assassination and I never said that Serbian people are evil/stupid. Serbian nationalism was very much alive at the period of time though and many blamed Austria-Hungary for not having a "Greater Serbia". Also the Archduke was planning to reform the monarchy and the Serbian nationalists saw him as a threat - the result is well known and the Archduke was dead. I do not think there was a vast Serbian conspiracy to kill him but (at least) a small part of the population wanted to see him dead.

And I do think that if a Briton, Bulgarian, Kalmyk etc. had killed the Archduke (and was caught) there would have been a similar outcome.

Arggh, I should have known better than getting involved in a discussion about Balkan nationalism.

a european war was inevitable. there was no bad or good guys in WWI. And after WWI, WWII was inevitable either.

a bloody and pointless mess...

KriegHund said:

a european war was inevitable. there was no bad or good guys in WWI. And after WWI, WWII was inevitable either.

Click to expand...

Considering the conditions of the peace treaties it was inevitable (not that the Central Powers would have been any kinder).

IIRC it was Marshal Foch who said: "That's no peace treaty, that is an armistice for 20 years".