Science confirms the Bible?

[DeistPaladin]

Germany was not solely to blame for WW1, all Europeans and their dogs were shits and giggles looking forward to that one not foreseeing the trenches and poison gas bullshit that resulted. It was a dumb war fought for no good reason except for Europe to vent steam and it was not worth dying for at all.

I've recently had the hobby of creating a hybrid board game, combining the map of "Diplomacy" with the rules for "A Game of Thrones" (the board game, not the books), I've immersed myself in the history of the first World War. I've probably done more research over this war than I ever did in school.

From my perspective, I'd agree with your assessment. Kaiser Wilhelm seems like our President W Bush, an idiot hothead who's solution to every problem was unilateral military action. At the same time, though, other nations were also chomping at the bit for a fight. France was looking for a rematch over the Franco-Prussian war and wanted to take back Alsace-Lorraine (a province I thought Germany had a stronger claim to anyway, since more people there identified as "German" rather then "French"). Bit of personal trivia, some of my ancestors fled that province to America and there was divided identity even within families. I was told one brother considered himself French while the other self-identified as German. Anyway, Austria wanted to crush Serbia. Serbia dreamed of creating a Yugoslavia from certain Austrian-controlled territory, led by them, of course. Russia felt an obligation to stand up for their fellow Slavs and identified with the Serbs. There's a lot of blame to go around.

I sometimes wonder over some "what-ifs" of that period. Could the crisis caused by the assassination of the Arch-Duke been resolved by four-party talks (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Serbia and Russia)? If not, what if Germany had taken a more defensive posture, waiting for France or Russia to throw the proverbial "first punch"? It would have been an awful risk, one a W Bush or a Kaiser W wouldn't have taken, but it might have avoided Britain's entry into the war against them as well as avoid the international stigma of being the aggressor. Heck, I wonder if France would have actually had the guts to attack first.

Then I wonder if pre-war tensions between France and Germany could have been alleviated. If the primary point of dispute was over Alsace-Lorraine, perhaps a peaceful compromise would have been both sides renounce ownership of it and grant its independence as a buffer state between the two? Would either side have agreed?

I've posted here before that the rape-fest at Versailles was one of the greatest tragedies of history. A Marshall Plan in 1919, not the treaty that was forced upon Germany, might have created a more stable democracy and avoided the rise of the Nazis. I've sometimes wondered why America retreated back into isolationism after WWI, even rejecting the very League of Nations we sought to create. My research points to disillusionment in the aftermath of the war. America entered it with such high ideals, making the world "safe for democracy" and creating a new League of Nations. At that time, we were still a minor power and could only be a voice of moderation at Versailles. We retreated back into isolation, like a sulking teenager in his room, and it took a declaration of war from Hitler to get us out of that isolationist mentality.

As for "getting their arse handed to them", dude, they were fighting Great Britain, France, Russia and America all at the same time. Cut them some slack for losing that one.