Who was to blame for the First World War?

Who was to blame for the First World War?

/pol/ was. Stop making shit threads.

Germans and Austrians, any other answer is wrong.

He didn't even want a war. He was penpals with his cousin Nicky right up to the very end and they both tried their best to avert a war. Germany was pretty much a military dictatorship where the Generals dictated all foreign policy, and they were still high from their victory in 1871, they thought they could do anything and didn't look for alternatives to war.

France meanwhile was looking for an excuse to create a war to get back alsace-lorraine.

It was a case of both sides wanting war, so both sides went to war. Its not like one side was completely innocent.

This.

>Muh France wasn't innocent
*inaudible autistic screeching

> Germany was pretty much a military dictatorship where the Generals dictated all foreign policy
This isn't even close to being true. Even during the war foreign policy was vested in the Chancellor (who was a civilian in Bethmann Hollweg until his resignation in the summer of 1917). The military leaders had to beg and plead to Hollweg and were rebuffed many times to resume unrestricted submarine warfare.

>Germany was pretty much a military dictatorship where the Generals dictated all foreign policy

If this were true, they might've actually won.

>Morocco Crisis
>builds a Navy to challenge Royal Navy thus increasing tensions
>gives A-H his full support to start a war in Balkans
>Invades Belgium
Germany good boy, he dindu nuffin

Greed, as for every war. Also thorough distrust in this case.

??

>France meanwhile was looking for an excuse to create a war to get back alsace-lorraine.
lmao yeah sure, they where not ready for a war

a simple way to see who's responsible in history

Is there a german involved? If yes, he's responsible.

A-H and Russia for starting it
France for encouraging it
Germany for expanding it
Britain for extending it

Starts with a J

>t.brainlet
If you knew something about Wilhelm, is that he was an autist on foreign policy See

>muh revanchisme

Keep drinking the apologist kool-aid, brainlet.

Moltke and Hollweg primarily.

The most inexcusable is the scrap of paper comment. Why would anyone trust or ally Germany after that since it's then clear they won't honor or uphold any agreements they personally don't like.

not to mention just how badly that shit backfired
not only did it give pretty much anyone that wanted a fantastic casus belli but then the belgians proceeded to put up a much better fight than anticipated ensuring that the trade-off was in absolutely no way worth it

They didn't even anticipate a fight from the Belgians. The leadership thought Belgium would just realize that it was a lost cause, and that they would simply let the Germans waltz through their territory.

Mainly AH
Germany and Russia are also partly responsible
Frogs and Bongs actually didnt to anything

The biggest cause of the war is that both Austria-Hungary and Germany felt insecure about their future. Austria-Hungary was increasingly nervous about growing separatism among its various minority groups, and Germany was nervous about Russia's growing power. Austria-Hungary deliberately deceived both Germany and Russia about their intentions towards Serbia, and Germany failed to pull back on the leash when they discovered the truth.

Pan-slavs

Read The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914

This is and will probably always be the best answer.

>He was penpals with his cousin Nicky right up to the very end

Somehow that just makes things worse. Wilhelm basically murdered his own cousin.

>France meanwhile was looking for an excuse to create a war to get back alsace-lorraine.

France definitely did want Alsace-Lorraine back, but France played no part in starting the war. Everything France did during the conflict was purely defensive. I don't think French troops ever even set foot on German soil throughout the entire war.

If the Schlieffen Plan had worked, then Britain's entry into the war would have been essentially irrelevant because France would be subdued before significant numbers of British troops could be transported to France. I think that is what the "scrap of paper" comment refers to. The dumber thing is that Wilhelm II essentially warned Britain that he planned to go through Belgium; he sent the British government a message promising that he'd restore Belgian borders after the war if Britain adopted a stance of neutrality.

He sent this message before German soldiers had even entered Belgium. The British cabinet had not previously known that Germany planned to enter Belgium, but they figured it out pretty fast after receiving that message, which in turn allowed them to contact Belgium and issue a warning. As a result, Belgium was able to scramble their army and put up a much stronger fight than they otherwise would have been able to.

>he sent the British government a message promising that he'd restore Belgian borders after the war if Britain adopted a stance of neutrality.
and why would Britain believe him? If Germany violates neutrality once what would stop them from doing it again, especially if France and Russia got buttfucked and dismantled by Germany?

(((who))) indeed

>and why would Britain believe him?

You'll have to ask Wilhelm because I have no fucking idea what he was thinking. Literally telegraphing your next move when your entire strategy hinges on maximum surprise is insane.

Imperialism