From your perspective, who were the "good guys" in World War I?

[Nakura]

From your perspective, who do you believe were the "good guys" in World War I?


The Central Powers
Some argue that Germany's behavior during the July Crisis (following the assassination of Franz Ferdinand) was highly militaristic, with Germany encouraging Austria-Hungary to wage war against Serbia (and as a result, France and Russia). Some also point towards Germany's policy of weltpolitik, or aggressive diplomacy, as being responsible for the war.

It should be noted that the Central Powers were accused of war crimes and widespread human rights abuses during the war, leading some to believe they were the "bad guys." One such example is the Ottoman Empire's alleged genocide against Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks. Another example was the Rape of Belgium, in which Germany followed a policy of treating civilians as combatants (either armed or not), killing and plundering across the country. A more controversial example would be Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare, though critics would contend that Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare policy was justified.


The Allied Powers
A common argument is that the Allied Powers were the "good guys," because they were largely democratic and in some ways fighting for the right of central European peoples to self-determination (Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, etc.). Others point to the conflict as a humanitarian one, with the United States helping liberate and rebuild Europe. Many third world nationalists held a positive opinion of the Allied Powers due to Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and calls for the gradual end of European colonialism.

While most contend that the Allied Powers were the "good guys," some believe otherwise, citing Russia's genocide against Jews during the war. Other critics point towards the controversial and potentially "unfair" handling of the Treaty of Versailles and Treaty of Trianon by the Allied Powers (primarily France) as evidence of the Allies (or at least France) behaving in a dishonorable manner. Still others argue that the primary Allied Powers (United States, Britain, France and Russia/USSR) were unfair to their Chinese, Italian, Japanese and Serbian allies following the war.

[Cyclops]

From your perspective, who do you believe were the "good guys" in World War I?

I hold the view most participants contribued to an atmosphere of belligerence and paranoia, behaving in ways I find unacceptable. The action of Serb terrorists may be the proximate cause, and the the escalation by the Romanovs may have made it a world war, but all parties have misdeeds to their name.

The Central Powers
Some argue that Germany's behavior during the July Crisis (following the assassination of Franz Ferdinand) was highly militaristic, with Germany encouraging Austria-Hungary to wage war against Serbia (and as a result, France and Russia).

Certainly Germany stood by its ally, guaranteeing it against Romanov aggression. Given the heir to the throne had been killed a Hapsburg reaction was inevitable. Russia' mobilisation (despite assurances it would not) are the spark that made war inevitable in August 1914, where previous crises had been defused.

Some also point towards Germany's policy of weltpolitik, or aggressive diplomacy, as being responsible for the war.

The Kaiser's manic and unsound leadership certainly contibuted to the change in the balance of power, alienating the Romanovs and helping push Great Britain into bed with Republican France. However the manic addventurer Napoleon III had been restraine from igniting a general conflagration in Europe through sound statesmanship from figures like Bismarck. There's no way WW1 would have begun and proceeded as it did had Germany had another Bismarck in charge.

It should be noted that the Central Powers were accused of war crimes and widespread human rights abuses during the war, leading some to believe they were the "bad guys." One such example is the Ottoman Empire's alleged genocide against Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks. Another example was the Rape of Belgium, in which Germany followed a policy of treating civilians as combatants (either armed or not), killing and plundering across the country. A more controversial example would be Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare, though critics would contend that Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare policy was justified.

While Imperial Germany can't be blamed for Ottoman offenses, its true the German forces in Belgium transgressed the norms of war in Belgium. Is it worth mentioning British violations of maritime law in declaring the North Sea a War zone? The Entente treatment of Greece was also highly controversial.

The Allied Powers
A common argument is that the Allied Powers were the "good guys," because they were largely democratic and in some ways fighting for the right of central European peoples to self-determination (Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, etc.).

I don't think dismemberment of the K und K was a war aim of any Entente members, rather something they tried to manage through Trianon.

I'd note that the "largely democratic" Entente was made up of three empires ruling through unelected officials over half the population of the world (once we include China). Great Britian and France had domestic democracies but the greater part of their African, Indian and other dominions were not democratic. The Romanovs ruled as Supreme Autorcrats of all the Russias.

Others point to the conflict as a humanitarian one, with the United States helping liberate and rebuild Europe.

I think you're mistaken, the US did not join the war until 1916, and its war aim was the defeat of an enemy conspiring against it on its own soil. The US did not rebuild Europe, indeed it completely abdicated the responsibilities its president had pledged.

Many third world nationalists held a positive opinion of the Allied Powers due to Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and calls for the gradual end of European colonialism.

To speak of a "Third World" ( a post-colonial concept) in WW1 is I think not apposite. Ireland and India shared more of an agenda than India and the Kongo, in terms of seeking self determination. Colonial powers in Africa had not yet instituted the structures that support most of the post colonial political state of modern Africa, and the hellish state of the Middle East is testament to the lack of clear vision in the post WW1 settlement.

While most contend that the Allied Powers were the "good guys," some believe otherwise, citing Russia's genocide against Jews during the war.

Wat.

Other critics point towards the controversial and potentially "unfair" handling of the Treaty of Versailles and Treaty of Trianon by the Allied Powers (primarily France) as evidence of the Allies (or at least France) behaving in a dishonorable manner.

Germany got off lightly compared to some war aims mooted by the Entente, but there is a theory "Versaille caused WW2". In the event Germany was not in a postition to disagree.

Still others argue that the primary Allied Powers (United States, Britain, France and Russia/USSR) were unfair to their Chinese, Italian, Japanese and Serbian allies following the war.

Serbia was given the central role in the new Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and considering the violent way it spark WW1 was rewarded beyond its desserts.

Japan was awarded much of Germany's pacific colonial holdings, but was denied an antoi-racism clause in the toothless League of Nations so it was somewhat dissapointed.

China joined the war in 1917 and was in no state to claim much in the carve up: IIRC there were protests that Versaille favoured Japan too much?

Italy is certainly lolworthy and possibly a " bad guy", having cointributed a lot of defeats to the Entente after stabbing their longtime ally Germany in the back.

[Iron Aquilifer]

The Allies, because we won.

The Treaty of Versailles is obviously an oft-argued point. Honestly, it could have been harsher (French wishes) or more lenient (Wilson) but I cannot see it held against the Allies. Our economies were collapsing (not the late arrival America, who as usual, profited from the war and only got involved when they themselves were threatened) and we had lost hundreds of thousands of men and women. Of course a sort of revenge was wished by Britain and France. That is to be expected: what would the public say if Germany did not suffer?

There were no good guys, obviously, however the Germans in violence against civilians were worse (compared to Britain and France). It was they who attacked Belgian civilians during the offensive, and then ransacked France during their retreat. I also believe they were the first to use gas warfare? If so then they get another shade darker.

Everyone was responsible for starting the war (power struggle between royals) but the conduct during the war is what can decide who was good.

Russia always conducted pogroms against their Jewish population during the reign of the Romonovs, that is nothing new. And after the Tsar's death, can the Bolshevik reign really be considered an Ally?

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I kind of agree with Cyclops. No need for a good or bad guy. These were all empires with most of them having very large colonial possessions and only some of them were even democratic.
Although I'm not entirely in agreement that Kaiser Wilhelm provided unsound leadership or that he alienated the Romanovs, he probably did alienate the British and the French in his handling of certain crises though.

Although China got control of some of the concession zones or leased areas occupied by the Central Powers. These areas were probably going to the Japanese but China acted sooner and got this territory back so not a total loss for China.

[hellheaven1987]

So, Allies was fighting for a Free Serbia right?

[Cyclops]

So, Allies was fighting for a Free Serbia right?

That was the sticker on the front of the bus, yes.

[Mausolos of Caria]

I don't think any side in any war ever was truly the ''good side'' and it's leaders and soldiers the ''good guys''. Historiographically seen, it's not really a serious question.

[hellheaven1987]

That was the sticker on the front of the bus, yes.

But there was no Free Serbia even after the war; all Serbs got were forced to live in other lower Slavs in "Yugoslavia".

[Cyclops]

But there was no Free Serbia even after the war; all Serbs got were forced to live in other lower Slavs in "Yugoslavia".

"Lower Slavs"? Yugoslavia had a Serbian ruling dynasty, and was essentially the old Serbian kingdom with bits added.

There were other stickers on the front of the bus. "Free Belgium" was one, "Revanche" was there for some, in Australia WWI vets were given service medals with "The Great War for Civilisation" inscribed.

[The Mad Skylord]

Meh, you can't call a side with Britain on it "good". The fact is, the British butchered millions throughout history. All for their greed. If the CP were the " bad guys" then the Entente were the "badest guys" through thr British associations alone.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Well that is one point. Look at the allies, they have France which was notorious across Africa for chopping off people's heads and hanging any enemies that did not submit to them. The Russian Empire itself was quite the mess in the sense that people were killed or shipped to Siberia all the time, not only that but some large scale executions in Central Asia caused an uproar. Belgium was notorious for their extremely harsh rule in Congo. Then there is Britain's doings in the colonies which was quite similar with the mass executions and hangings. I could go on about all of the Allies but you get the picture.
Things is though the Central Powers weren't too different. Not Austria, not Germany and not the Ottoman Empire. The exception might be Bulgaria but I don't really know what happened during the Balkan Wars and who they might have killed. Since I understand the Balkan Wars to have included all sorts of war crimes by multiple sides.

[Iron Aquilifer]

Meh, you can't call a side with Britain on it "good". The fact is, the British butchered millions throughout history. All for their greed. If the CP were the " bad guys" then the Entente were the "badest guys" through thr British associations alone.

Cannot use outside influences in regards to this conflict. Germans were the first to use gas. Germans were the ones who sacked eastern France. Britain was the country who went to war to defend another country's independence. Greed was also a factor, but given that it was a factor concerning ALL othet major powers I have left that one out. And giving democracy to countries who dont wish it is not really a good idea.

[Cyclops]

...Germans were the first to use gas...

I'm pretty sure it was the French.

The Germans were the first to lethal gas and to use it effectively, in 1915. However as usual the story is complex, and both sides prepared "tear gas" and non lethal irritants in 1914, even then probably in breach of the Hague conventions.

The hysterical propaganda being blasted on all sides goes some way to explaining why militaries found it easy to resort to such sickening weapons.

[Iron Aquilifer]

I'm pretty sure it was the French.

Then I partly retract my comment. Thank you for clearing that up for me. It was a horrible, almost pointless war and so aside from learning about the conditions of the soldiers, I investigated very little in to the ins and outs.

[DarthShizNit]

It should be noted that the whole "Free Serbia" and "Self determination for the East" didn't really come along until later in the war when the US came in.

[hellheaven1987]

Germans were the ones who sacked eastern France.

What, Belgium now is part of France?

It should be noted that the whole "Free Serbia" and "Self determination for the East" didn't really come along until later in the war when the US came in.

But BIG BROTHER SLAV was fighting for FREE Serbia and French supported that idea!! British pretty much just volunteerly joined this mess and no one cared what they thought as long as they continuing throwing warm bodies to fill the holes.

[Iron Aquilifer]

What, Belgium now is part of France?

During the retreat (100 Day Offensive?) the Germans burned down entire villages of France they had held on to since 1914.

[hellheaven1987]

During the retreat (100 Day Offensive?) the Germans burned down entire villages of France they had held on to since 1914.

Right, next time you would claim British "sacked" Somme because British force literally erased any villages in that region through dense bombardment.

[Cyclops]

It should be noted that the whole "Free Serbia" and "Self determination for the East" didn't really come along until later in the war when the US came in.

"Free Serbia' was the excuse the Tsar's men used for attempting to bluff the Austrians. Their bluff included a partial then a full mobilisation, which pretty much kicked off the war.

[DarthShizNit]

Of course it was an excuse, but the support for what would turn into Yugoslavia, and active disintegration of the Hapsburg realms, didn't really catch on until America joined the war.