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

[DaniCatBurger]

Else Lasker-Schueler

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The Red Cross and all other organisations who helped people without looking at nationality.

Don't think anyone can disagree with this.

[Svaamp]

Great Britain - So strangely, it seems, despite it's oppressive and explotative empire, and despite avarice fuelled gobbling of new territory after the war, Great Britain emerges as perhaps the only "good guy", or like I said earlier "the least bad" of WW1. This is because (in my opinion) however racist they were in their colonies, back in Britain the brits had a liberal and representative democracy. Remember, there were even a couple of Indian MPs in the house of commons. And for all their imperial greed, they did treat their subjects, as well as their enemies, with the least amount of barbarity (although this is relative; the irish were brutally put down in 1916, but there were no brit genocides). The vast disillusionment created by the loss of life led to the formation of an "anti-imperial" generation, which would in the future have much to do with smooth british decolonization (again relative; compare French Vietnam to British Malaya). Militarly, they are also the undoubted victors of the first world war, with the strength of their fleet and empire holding the german juggernaut at bay for four years, and producing some of the best aircraft, the innovative "creeping barrage" artillery tactics, and of course, the tank. And finally, they were in 1914 under no real compulsion to come to France's aid (the entente was officially an "understanding", not an alliance), yet they did, as they had promised. But just a year after the end of the war, a british general would mow down a peaceful crowd of people (including women and children) in India (by firing squad), so maybe, "good guys" is a little hard to say...

Britain did blockade Germany and effectively starved the population, hardly a good thing to do right? Aswell as dismantling German ports after the war, preventing supplies from being unloaded once it arrived after the war (the french or the russians also seized their trains, which didnt help much).

The compulsion to join the war was to put down the emerging German state no?

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

The Germans were clearly the good side since they did not treat their soldiers like cattle and actually tried to keep them alive. Compare this with the allies of cynically sacrificed wave after wave to machine gun fire. Germany also invented the infiltration tactics in order to be able to attack without needles casualties.

No doubt that it was Britain. Any argument saying Germany wasnt the bad guy falls short when the invasion of a neutral country, Belgium, comes to mind.

Sorry, but that is a non-arguement. The invasion of Belgium was a necessity of war and in comparison with starting a world war like the Russians did, this was a mere breach of etiquette in comparison. It is also likely that Belgium would have become a staging point for allied forces had Germany not gotten there first.

Honestly this feels more like an arguement for the Germans being the good guys since they were willing to take diplomatic risks in order to bring the war to a quick conclusion and save human lives.

As for the Belgians being killed, weren't those partisans? There's not many other ways to deal with partisans.

This does not happen in the 2nd world war, where the Nazi's provide perhaps modern history's most clear cut "bad guys" as it were.

Actually you are quite wrong. There is nothing clear cut about it at all. It is not like the Nazi's went into war believing they were the "bad guys" and I doubt their allies did either, so already there it is not clear cut. However let's also examine some basic facts about the outbreak of that war:

1) It was the English and French that turned it into a world war by declaring war on the Germans. Until that point it was mere border conflict between Germany and Poland about the fate of Danzig. Note that Danzig actually had a majority population of Germans and they were being misstreated by the Polish who had put the city under a blockade. Technically therefore the Germans had a just cause and might even according to today's international law had the legal right to protect this endangered enclave.

2) After the defeat of Poland the Germans offered the allies peace asking only minor territorial concessions from Poland which would otherwise be free, except the half of Poland occupied by the Soviets (but I am getting to that soon). This was a fairly good deal considered the state on the ground and had the allies desired peace the should have taken it.

3) Despite both Germany and the Soviet Union invading Poland simultaniously, the allies solely declared war on Germany. This demonstrate clearly that the allies had no real interest in the wellbeing of Poland. They solely wished for the destruction of Germany. Had they been the "good guys" they should have declared war on the Soviet Union as well. This is actually one of the major points as to why the allies really weren't any "good guys" in WW2.

4) After Germany had totally defeated the French they offered peace to England again. The terms were the safe, meaning the Germans had no intention of keeping neither France nor Poland. They just wanted small territories that had been German prior to the was such as Elsass-Lothringen, Poznan and Danzig. These were good terms and really merciful compared to the terms Germany had suffered in WW1. The English refused, instead pledging to fight until Germany was destroyed. This also goes against the usual missconception that the Nazis were after some kind of world domination. Technically their long term goals were similiar to something like the European Union, but "hey it's not fascism when we do it":

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

5) One of the allies, the Soviet Union got the world record in killing people. Really cozy good guys there. It's pretty hard to be the "good guys" when you got the biggest "bad guy" of them all on your side.

So you see it is not clear cut. In many ways the Germans acted a lot more civilized than the allies in WW2. Please also remember that the victors write the history, in all wars. Or maybe you figured it was a coincidence that the people portrayed as the "good guys" tend to win in 90% of the cases? Meanwhile most succesful CEO's are actually diagnosed sociopaths... I could go on and on, but that would be off topic, the point is that they are no clear cut badguys and there never will be. Or well I would be really surprised if I ever heard any group say: "We fight for evil!". I think you see now how silly that sounds.

Turkey - Driven by an intense sense of insecurity, the Turks seemed in 1915 (when they entered the war) to be desperately trying to preserve their empire. Yet in fact the "young Turks" in charge were inspired by European ideas of nationalism and were trying to create a "modern" nation. To this extent, they were willing to discard the "archaic" ottoman empire (religiously tolerant, feudally-federal, power sharing and non-centralized; hardly looks archaic today!) for a new "national" Turkey. From this point of view Turkey is actually somewhat of a victor in WW1, as it managed to achieve this. It is also undoubtbly one of the "bad guys", for abandoning millions of it's subjects to the predatory western powers, and of course, for the genocide of the Armenians. Hitler, on the eve of the 2nd world war would famously say, "After all, who today remembers the Armenians?".

Allow me to laugh a little bit now. Sure the Ottoman Empire was religiously tolerant... by medieval standards! Ottoman tolerance consisted of that they let Christians remain Christians becuase it was profitable for them. It allowed them to collect extra taxes due to the jizya and it provided recruits to the janissaries that had to be recruited from Christian boys. The Ottomans demanding Vlad the Impaler to send thousands of boys to serve as slave soldiers in their armies is a fairly famous example. Other than that the Ottomans practiced other forms of discrimination such as:

Dhimmis were excluded from public office and armed service, and were forbidden to bear arms. They were not allowed to ride horses or camels, to build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, to construct houses higher than those of Muslims or to drink wine in public. They were not allowed to pray or mourn in loud voices-as that might offend the Muslims. The dhimmi had to show public deference toward Muslims-always yielding them the center of the road. The dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence in court against a Muslim, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court. To defend himself, the dhimmi would have to purchase Muslim witnesses at great expense. This left the dhimmi with little legal recourse when harmed by a Muslim.⁽⁴⁾
Dhimmis were also forced to wear distinctive clothing.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...%28gen%29.html

Suffice to say, living as a non-muslim in the Ottoman caliphate was a pretty deal and it can only be seen as tolerant if you compare it with the traditional convert or die offer... So it might have been fairly tolerant in the 15th century, but we are talking the early 20th century here where full religious freedom had been the norm since the end of the 18th century in all European countries except perhaps the Russian Empire.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The Germans were clearly the good side since they did not treat their soldiers like cattle and actually tried to keep them alive.

It is also likely that Belgium would have become a staging point for allied forces had Germany not gotten there first.

Well there is the so called "Massacre of the Innocents" at the 1st Battle of Ypres where low quality infantry were sent to their deaths against the entrenched British.

While I think that Belgium was far more likely to be a staging point for the Allies in WW2 I'm not sure this was the case in WW1.
For example Joffre and Foch wanted to invade Belgium but the British told them that if they did then they would get no support. Maybe the interesting part is that the British didn't outright say that they would fight the French if they invaded Belgium but rather that they would not support France.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Well there is the so called "Massacre of the Innocents" at the 1st Battle of Ypres where low quality infantry were sent to their deaths against the entrenched British.

While I think that Belgium was far more likely to be a staging point for the Allies in WW2 I'm not sure this was the case in WW1.
For example Joffre and Foch wanted to invade Belgium but the British told them that if they did then they would get no support. Maybe the interesting part is that the British didn't outright say that they would fight the French if they invaded Belgium but rather that they would not support France.

Sure, but the Germans did that sort of stuff less frequently and ceased the mass attacks much earlier than the others.

The possibility is more then reason enough though, imagine the disastrous results if the allies had used Belgium to secretly transport allied soldiers behind German lines. In comparison the invasion if Belgium had little consequence, I don't think anyone honestly believes that Britain would have stayed out of the war if Germany just left Benelux alone. Germany, their chief rival, was at war with their ally, there is no way Britain would have stayed out of that.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I don't believe that Britain would have stayed out of the war in the long term.
But to actually pass through Belgium they likely would have required Belgium's approval, which isn't impossible though. But then why would Britain tell France not to invade Belgium at the start of the war. It was easily Germany's biggest political mistake especially since the issue came up during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870.

[IlluminatiRex]

I consider myself to be a bit of a WWI Buff (it's nearly all I read about, plus my dream career would be in WWI Archeology), and in my opinion the Austro-Hungarian empire are the real "bad-guys", along with the Ottoman's for what they did to the Armenians. But I mean, I don't really find any nation to be clean when it comes to WWI; from starting it, to its execution. A lot of what caused WWI is traced back to the Balkan wars and the meddling of the European powers to try to get what they wanted for the region.

Also, I saw someone state that the Germans were the first to use gas in the war; while it is true that they were the first to use wholly poisonous gas, France first used gas in 1914 - Xylyl Bromide is commonly stated, but it was more likely it was Ethyl Bromide which the French had been using prior to the war. Both of those are tear gasses and can be under the correct circumstances deadly. It was those attacks that the Germans used to justify their use of gas.

And in terms of individual leaders; I prefer to look at it as a family feud. Cousin wanting to beat cousin, that sort of thing. I had thumbed through a book at school one day that at a teacher of mine had on his shelf (wish I remembered the title) which was talking about Kaiser Wilhelm II and his relationship with Arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand. This book made the claim that while they weren't entirely close; the news of the Arch-Duke's death had hit him extremely hard as he sympathized with the Arch-Duke. Mainly because the Arch-Duke wasn't necessarily the favorite of the Austrian royal court and the Kaiser had been more or less ostracized in his life as well; due to his disability with his arm. An interesting view on the Kaiser to say the least.

Almost forgot to mention Germany in Belgium; while the British reports of beheadings and what not were certainly fanciful and pieces of propaganda, it would be hard to deny that the German army killed many civilians. Wikipedia states that the numbers were: 6,000 Belgians killed, 25,000 homes and other buildings in 837 communities destroyed. A lot of it seems to be a mixed bag for why some of those acts happened, some were premeditated, others were in the heat of the moment in battle. Part of it might have been fear of the German command for anotherfrancs tireurs sitatuation ala the Franco-Prussian War. Either way, Germany did commit crimes in Belgium, and as I said I don't think there are any real bad good guys in the war, just a lot of nations looking out for their own national interests no matter what the cost is.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

I don't believe that Britain would have stayed out of the war in the long term.
But to actually pass through Belgium they likely would have required Belgium's approval, which isn't impossible though. But then why would Britain tell France not to invade Belgium at the start of the war. It was easily Germany's biggest political mistake especially since the issue came up during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870.

Well that would totally have removed the surprise element and would have given Germany full justification for invading Belgium. It also possible that it was one of several option on the table for the Brits and that they wanted to save it for later.

We will of course never know since if such plans have existed they would be far to sensitive to risk being revealed, therefore all evidence is probably long since destroyed of any such plans.

Anyway the main point is that the Germans could not know the British plans and had to act accordingly.

[abaris]

The reason why they invaded Belgium is the Schlieffen plan. They didn't have anything else in their drawers and it already created chaos that they weren't prepared in any way, shape or form to deal with a second front against Russia.

As for good or bad guys, they didn't exist in WWI. It was an Imperial war in the tradition of the 19th century to further interests or to get back at old enemies. Nothing glorious about that struggle. Just a needless bloodbath preparing the soil for the real catastrophe 25 years later.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I have to say that the amount of anti-German propaganda at the time was ridiculous. Insane claims that only an illiterate retard could believe.
Insane claims that the Germans were trying to exterminate the Polish or that they were working on a premeditated plan to depopulate the entirety of the Balkans or even that the Germans were the ones telling the Turks to kill Armenians so that the Germans could begin colonizing Armenia. There was also an even crazier one that the Armenian Genocide was the first step in a German plan to eventually depopulate the entirety of the Middle East as far as Iraq cause we all know that the Berlin-Baghdad railway was originally intended as the means to accomplish this as early as 1903 (even though the Ottomans scrambled to get funds from countries like Britain and France as well). Actually I don't even think the railway had reached Baghdad yet during WW1 which makes the article published in 1918 all the more bizarre with its strange Germany genocides every nation to their east claims. One would think that the dastardly Germans were planning on exterminating and then colonizing the entirety of China and Japan next (what with Willie's strange disposition towards Asians ).

[hellheaven1987]

William wanted Germans be Huns.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Yeah I think Wilhelm is starting to sound like Genghis Khan.
That could have been a film: Wilhelm Khan the Conqueror!

I can't find the article anymore (well multiple articles really) but this one was published in 1918. I mean who in the hell would be dumb enough to believe this. Why would the Germans want the Turks to depopulate Armenia so that Germans would colonize the area? If anyone would colonize the entirety of the Middle East it would have been the Turks. Also I checked and the Baghdad railway only stretched to Diyarbekir and wouldn't reach Baghdad until the 1930's.

[abaris]

Well, historians pretty much agree that Wilhelm was a loudmouthed moron on the throne.

But the Germany of 1914 certainly wasn't the Germany of 1939. That's even more obvious if you read what German officials had to say about using certain weaponry. I'm not sure, who said it, but there was an exchange between a military man, who wanted to start biological warfare and a high ranking official, wo replied that Germany wouldn't be worthy to survive as a nation if they resorted to that kind of atrocity. Also the army itself was much more lenient towards it's own soldiers than most allied forces.

http://www.greatwar.nl/frames/default-shotatdawn.html

From the German army about 150,000 soldiers deserted. Most of them fled to the neutral Netherlands and to Denmark and Switzerland. From those who got caught no more than 18 were executed (compare this to the 10.000 deserters Germany shot in the second world war).

[Blastoise Groudon]

So, Allies was fighting for a Free Serbia right?

In theory, yes. In reality, not so much sadly.

[MissRarity]

No-ing-body.

It was a brutal war based on nationalistic expansion, racism and stereotypes, and every nation (not individual solider) should be ing ashamed that they participated in this damn conflict.

[Blastoise Groudon]

If you think about it, it was a idiotic war too. All of these empires ended up collapsing over their silly feuds.

[hellheaven1987]

No-ing-body.

It was a brutal war based on nationalistic expansion, racism and stereotypes, and every nation (not individual solider) should be ing ashamed that they participated in this damn conflict.

Every soldier should be ashamed they did not march out trench, back to their capital and shot their politicians.

[Owlparrot3]

The only guys according to me who are good in ww1 were Turkey .They were losing their land to rebels .A bear flag country was trying to help them and the country of the Archdukes was governing Bosnia (Turkish territory legally)in their name and disregarding their rights in the region .The british and French had been playing around with Egypt and the middleast for the past 100 years .Britian even ruled egypt as the anglo turkish Egypt .France had done similar crimes too .Russia and Italy had also broken many promises in the russo-Turkish war and in the Italian-Turkish war(By which Italy gained Libya) .
Even the Kaiser dragged them into this war .By the two ships which fired upon The british without permission.
references-https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi7lLDlgL3RAhWKQ48KHaBsCFYQFgguMAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHistory_of_Egypt_under_the_British&usg=AFQjCNEhxjaEV8PzAmopP57dzlxeOTtxxA&bvm=bv.144210762,d.c2I .

[athanaric]

Since this thread has been revived, I'd like to point out that it's ridiculous to assume that the Allies were fighting for national self-determination. While the major Axis powers (at least Germany and the Ottoman Empire) also held large colonies, the three core "Allies" (Britain, France, and Russia. Yes, Russia) were the three biggest colonial powers of their time, with no sign of wanting to relinquish their holdings (indeed, Russia still holds more than half of its colonial territory). These countries - and even the USA - only fought for self-determination where it suited them.
Internal repression, war crimes and genocides are a completely different issue, of course. As is arguing the positive or negative sides of colonialism.

The only guys according to me who are good in ww1 were Turkey .They were losing their land to rebels .

Lands which they had taken from other powers before them. Also, those "rebels" were indigenous Arabs, Armenians, Greeks etc. - why should they bow to a ruling class that increasingly (to this day) relied on marginalizing their cultures and replacing them with its own, and a completely alien language to boot?