Since the Entente was supporting Serbia who in fact started the war due to their state terrorist antics, it is fair to say that the Entente were the aggressors.
Sorry, that's not correct. The Entente was uninterested in the Serbian-Austrian situation and barely aware it had happened. That's very clear from the diplomatic records of the time. It was just another Balkan crisis of which there had been a lot.
Indeed. Welshing on your allies tends to be looked upon poorly. And really, why should blame be cast on a country for what was essentially a powder keg waiting to happen? Except perhaps the country that lit it *cough* Serbia *cough*.
Except, Germany had publicly declared that treaties were nothing more than a piece of paper and could be ignored at will. That had given them the perfect out when it came to supporting Austria-Hungary and if Germany had not supported Austria-Hungary, Russia would not have supported Serbia. Under those circumstances, at best there would have been an agreement over the remaining article of Austria-Hungary's demands and the situation would have subsided (again, repeat, Serbia had accepted all of Austria-Hungary's demands but one and offered to negotiate on the last), At worst, there would have been yet another minor Balkan War and the matter would have subsided. It was the Kaiser's Telegram that turned an rather stupid local crisis into something that was Europe-wide.
So, why did they do it. Answer, as it is for most wars, eventually comes down to economics. France had (unexpectedly) recovered from 1871 and growing fast. Russia, even more unexpectedly was starting explosive economic growth and was expanding its economic (and thus military) power quickly. Britain had won the naval race and its naval power was moving ahead of Germany's. In 1914, the German General Staff had told the Kaiser that if they didn't go to war in 1914 and cripple French and Russian economic growth, by 1915/16 the correlation of forces would be swinging against them and victory would become progressively less plausible. Therefore, it was 1914 or nothing.
By the way, a very interesting cut on this is the Starmedia History of the Great War on youtube. This is a Russian history of the outbreak and course of WW1 and its viewpoint is extremely valuable (which doesn't mean its correct, it means it shows us how the Russians were - and are - thinking. What it does do is show the extent to which Russia was industrializing in 1905-1914.
And really, when has breaking nations up ever worked well? Just look at the historical antecedents for this. Yugoslavia. The Soviet Union. The Koreas. Vietnam. The Ottoman Empire. Really, who in the right mind would want to do this? Except to intentionally create additional unneeded human suffering.
Austria-Hungary in 1918 and Germany in 1945. Both worked, Germany very well. Its essential to look through the eyes of people of 1918, not 2019. In 1918, the creation of nation-states around the ethnic identity of the populations was the great idea. It was seen (particularly by the Americans) as the solution to all international political ills. We'll come back to that a bit later but in the meantime, I'd refer you to Tooze's Deluge where this is examined in detail. Deluge is compulsory reading for this period. It's one of the few authoritative evaluations of what went on in the 1916-1918 era. In 2019, we know that this kind of nation-statism doesn't work very well - at best its a double-edged sword - but in 1918 it was the great hope of mankind.
And going to be honest, I am actually livid at the opinions displayed by some. Because to me, I find them quite...distasteful, and I will leave it at that.
If you want to be an analyst, one has to learn to be dispassionate about these things. Especially things that happened a hundred years ago. I watch Russian television as well (a lot) and get much the same feeling but that doesn't change the value of the information therel
Besides, does anyone here even understand how happy the german states were to finally unite as one nation? Any foreign force trying to split them up again, would have to deal with something like Vietnam: The Prequel.
In 1914, the Prussian-led German Empire was respected by its inhabitants. "Happy" is a serious overstatement; there was considerable industrial and political unrest within Germany aimed at, not necessarily the United Germany but the way that United Germany was being run. That discontent was escalating (socialists held the majority in the German Parliament and their strength was growing) and was one factor that led to the pessimism in the GGS over the way the situation was developing. War was seen as the major way out of this situation. On the other hand, that German population had seen the German Empire putting Germany on the world map, making it a great power and generally putting it into the councils of the Great Powers. So, from that point of view, the successes of the Empire were admired. But loved? No.
1n 1918, the Prussian-led German Empire was hated by its inhabitants. And hated not an overstatement; that's why civil wars (multiple ones) were breaking out all over Germany. The German population were starving, they had taken massive casualties, their country was collapsing around them and it was obvious they were pariahs. The German Empire was blamed for all of that. That's why the Kaiser abdicated (or one of the reasons why). Given the degree of civil war and unrest that was prevailing plus the imminent unconditional surrender (averted by the November Armistice), suggesting there would have been a Vietnam-style resistance in 1918 is out of the question. After all, there wasn't in 1945, for exactly the same reasons.
And do you really think the nations standing nearby would support this? They would quickly realize if precedent is set, then every nation weaker than the UK is going to be on the chopping block. India? What india? There're only five mini-nations constantly at war with each other.
They didn't. Chopping countries up in nation states based on ethnic and cultural groupings was an American idea and it was squarely aimed at the British and French Empires. Woodrow Wilson's primary political aim was ending the great multinational empires and he saw what became the Versailles Treaty as a tool to do just that. This, in fact, is why the option of splitting Germany up into four nations (another American idea by the way) was firmly rejected by Britain and France (who had empires) and Italy (who thought having one would be rather nice). This was predicated on the anticipated German unconditional surrender in December 1918 (and why Woodrow Wilson wanted to avoid that surrender). What we are looking at here is the possibility of the US succeeding in forcing the concept though. By the way, the US proposed the same thing in 1944-45 and that evolved into the zones of occupation. It worked in 1945, the question is would the same idea worked in 1918, in one case after the November 1918 armistice and in AH, after the December 1918 unconditional surrender by Germany.
As a by-the-way, the German strategy from October 1918 onwards, following the crushing defeat of the German Army during the 100 days, was to seek an Armistice and then use the winter months to rebuild their shattered army and try to regain control of the country. Then, their plan was to resume the fighting in the spring of 1919. The British and French were perfectly well aware of that and their opposition to the November Armistice was based on that knowledge. What changed their mind was the perception that, no matter what the GGS planned, once the war ended in an armistice or not, it would not be possible to restart it. So, the emphasis became one of creating an Armistice that would not allow a resumption of hostilities,