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

[hellheaven1987]

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.

Free Serbia is not Yugoslavia.

[Iron Aquilifer]

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

People werent living in the Somme villages at this point (the villages being turned in to fortresses). The Germans burned houses and anything they could not carry with them. People were left with nothing. Of course cases of mistreatment occured during this period. This was an order simply to inflict more suffering on France, a petty act of spite, if I needs simplify it. No military advantage was gained.

[Cyclops]

German conduct in the scorched earth retreat in late 1918 was within the accepted rules of war, unlike the conduct toward Belgian civilians in 1914.

Entente behaviour toward Greece during 1915-1917 was pretty much to tread on their sovreignty, effectively occupying Thessalonkia (albeit with the tacit if extra-legal support of the prime minister).

There's no good guys.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Yeah not to mention Russian looting a burning in East Prussia and then the limited scorched earth during their retreat from Poland and East Prussia.

[Pathfinder]

The Bolsheviks.

Or the conscientious objectors, whichever you'd prefer

[fdsdh1]

The good guys were clearly the Allies, we are only going to talk about the 'main' powers, I am not sure what Italy and Belgium were like I assume constitutional monarchy but I may be wrong

France- democracy
Great Britain- constitutional monarchy

however there is an exception

Russia- autocratic monarchy (replaced by provisional government which wasn't really an improvement, then replaced by Bolsheviks who ended WW1 causing a civil war and then purging everyone [Lenin and Trotsky Red Terror], including their own more liberal elements)

Empires- democracy in colonies could be anywhere from the same as the home nation or no real democracy at all


but the central powers...

Austria- autocratic monarchy (who's oppression of certain peoples led to the war itself)
Germany- autocratic monarchy (who also invaded Belgium a neutral country, and had for a long time been in a war of word with France)

[hellheaven1987]

Great Britain- constitutional monarchy

You mean the same state that used concentration camp in South Africa.

[Condottiere 40K]

15824
If you think about it, Switzerland.

[Wulfburk]

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.

[The Despondent Mind]

War Crimes in Belgium and Serbia kind of speak for themselves, though the Brits or French are not angels.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I dunno Joffre was just about to invade Belgium when Britain kindly told him to off if that was going to be the case.

I can say that Germany slighted Portugal more than once though.

[anant]

The greatly interesting thing about the first world war is the headlong race towards imperial suicide that the nations of Europe (great and all powerfull) engaged in, equally overconfident in their arrogant belief of their superiority over others. 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. Still, if a case has to be made for the "good guys" or at least the "least bad" in this century old tragedy, we should consider the main belligerents one by one:
THE CENTRAL POWERS
Germany- In recent years, many pro-german arguments have emerged, amongst them claims by neo-imperial historians (like Niall ferguson) that Germany was involved in a "sort of" rational EU type project and had Britain (and eventually the US) just allowed it to go ahead the world might have avoided the catastrophe of the 2nd world war entirely. This is completely ignorant of the facts. In fact, Anglo-German rivalry had been stoked by the German establishment to fever pitch at the time by the (very) irresponsible and immature German establishment, backed by a people buoyed by their extreme (and new) nationalism in the wake of their triumphant victory in the Franco-Prussian war. Between the 1870's and 1914, Germany had been busy antagonizing every great power with it's reckless hunger for world power, be it the Americans in the Phillipines or the British in south Africa. The massive German war fleet could have been aimed at threatening only one power, Great Britain, and it's jingoistic construction caused such a headache as to drive the Brits into the arms of their old enemies, the French and the Russians.

Secondly, Germany has been sometimes potrayed as a "loyal" ally, standing by Austria-Hungary despite overwhelming odds in a noble kind of fight to the death. Nothing can be further from the truth. Bethmann Hollwegg's (the then german chancellor) secretary's diaries (discovered some time ago now) show the real game; Germany was concerned about Russian rearmament and railway construction programmes set to be completed by 1917, which would make it impossible for the Germans to defeat France and Russia at the same time...the thinking when presented with the "golden opportunity" (the assassination in 1914) was, now or never, now before it's too late. Austria was goaded repeatedly into declaring war on Serbia to get Russia and France at war with Germany, at which point the german war plans kicked into action. A perfect indicator of the pre-meditated nature of German actions are the 11 volumes of railway traffic management published by the general staff; they leave little doubt that the actions planned could only have been carried out before the Russians had fully developed their own military infrastructure. The over-confident and hyperbolic German generation of 1870 has indeed, much to answer for.

Austria-Hungary - After the war, an Austrian diplomat famously said of it, "As a nation, we could have chosen to die in a million ways...we chose the most terrible." This encapsulates the Austro-Hungarian failure to adapt into a modern nation, and its puffing and preening on a stage too big for it's boots. For a nation that started a world war, it was incredibly unprepared; it's army was many times the size of the British army for example, but with a third of the budget. The denial of reality by a despotic and aloof establishment is one of the great tragedies of the region. What could have been an early eccelectic-mix of strong and united peoples was totally unraveled by racist chauvinism and panicky minority appeasement. Perhaps the best thing about the empire was that it did not survive the war.

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?".

ENTENTE POWERS
France - Having lost alscae-lorraine in the last clash with Germany, France embarked on a project of national propaganda vilifying the Germans and glorifying the French people and nation. While this would no doubt stiffen French resistance during the war, it was responsible for much of the barbarity of the conflict, as well as the distaste of the final "peace" treaties. It also allowed incompetent generals and politicians to bleed French manhood dry in the early phases of the war without consideration of the losses incurred. France fought magnificently, but the fundamentalist, unforgiving attitude that had poisoned "la belle france" ensured that 1914-18 were the last time they would fight like that. That being said, it was the later French marshals who developed what would later be called "blitzkrieg", and France had a major role in the defeat of Germany. Yet it is hard to think of the French as the "good guys", specially when one considers the disasterous treaties they forced down the loser's throats at the end of the war.

Russia - Like recent attempts at german rehabilitation, some writers have suggested that had the 1st world war not caused revolution, Russia might have gone on to develop into a developed and modern nation under the Tsars. Yet if one examines contemporary literature of the period, it seems like the one thing everyone wanted and expected and hoped for, was a great Russian revolution. Why they did so is easy to see; hardly a more despotic or oppressive regime can be found in the world at the time. Despite a humiliating loss to Japan in 1905, the Tsar was busy restoring his army and military, instead of trying to do something for the benefit of his blighted people. Through the aggressive rhetoric, the incredible inefficiency of the state showed through in everything. Only 1 in 15 recruits actually reached his barracks, for example! The utter indifference felt by the rulers for the ruled sealed Russia's fate, and also makes it impossible to see them as any sort of "good guys."

USA - The most hypocritical and sly participant in the 1st world war, USA sold arms and ammunition (along with massive quantities of everything else, for eg. barbed wire) to every side for three years before wading in to make sure it's main creditors (UK and France) would be around to repay the loans they owed the US. Spin masters even then, they stage managed an American "victory", despite general Pershing's unprofessional refusal to integrate US forces into an allied command, while at the same time turning New York into the financial capital of the world. "Good Guy?" Nah.


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...

[Copperknickers II]

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.

Unlike other global empires of course who never butchered anyone. What did Britain ever do that France, Belgium and Spain didn't?

[hellheaven1987]

What did Britain ever do that France, Belgium and Spain didn't?

British "invented" concentration camp.

It does make me wonder whether it inspired Ottomans to treat Armenians the same way though.

[Mangalore]

...
Germany- In recent years, many pro-german arguments have emerged, amongst them claims by neo-imperial historians (like Niall ferguson) that Germany was involved in a "sort of" rational EU type project and had Britain (and eventually the US) just allowed it to go ahead the world might have avoided the catastrophe of the 2nd world war entirely. This is completely ignorant of the facts. In fact, Anglo-German rivalry had been stoked by the German establishment to fever pitch at the time by the (very) irresponsible and immature German establishment, backed by a people buoyed by their extreme (and new) nationalism in the wake of their triumphant victory in the Franco-Prussian war. Between the 1870's and 1914, Germany had been busy antagonizing every great power with it's reckless hunger for world power, be it the Americans in the Phillipines or the British in south Africa. The massive German war fleet could have been aimed at threatening only one power, Great Britain, and it's jingoistic construction caused such a headache as to drive the Brits into the arms of their old enemies, the French and the Russians.

Secondly, Germany has been sometimes potrayed as a "loyal" ally, standing by Austria-Hungary despite overwhelming odds in a noble kind of fight to the death. Nothing can be further from the truth. Bethmann Hollwegg's (the then german chancellor) secretary's diaries (discovered some time ago now) show the real game; Germany was concerned about Russian rearmament and railway construction programmes set to be completed by 1917, which would make it impossible for the Germans to defeat France and Russia at the same time...the thinking when presented with the "golden opportunity" (the assassination in 1914) was, now or never, now before it's too late. Austria was goaded repeatedly into declaring war on Serbia to get Russia and France at war with Germany, at which point the german war plans kicked into action. A perfect indicator of the pre-meditated nature of German actions are the 11 volumes of railway traffic management published by the general staff; they leave little doubt that the actions planned could only have been carried out before the Russians had fully developed their own military infrastructure. The over-confident and hyperbolic German generation of 1870 has indeed, much to answer for.

...

This is a very anachronistic view on the matter. Germany was not considered an autocracy by Great Britain until guess what? the naval race. Until the 1890 Bismarck's policy was that of a saturated German empire aka all territorial claims bein satisfied and the colonial race being rather timid. The rising tensions between Great Britain however were not solely based on the naval race but that every economic and demographic factor made Germany the next big power in Europe and that the British power structure after the Napoleonic Wars were in opposition to the rise of a new power.

Citing Bethmann Hollweg's diaries is not helpful because they justify the war after the fact not before. In essence you have the guy justifying why his foreign policy disaster is a good thing and how germany can regain her losses. Far more telling is the fact that Germany planned to defeat Russia via defeating France... ... ... Germany had no actual plan to fight Russia although supposedly that's what they were in a hurry to do. There wasn't even a plan to follow the Schlieffenplan in the East. There was nothing! Defend and hold and make up stuff on the spot was the big plan.

Added to that Germany's military spending was lower and divided between the fleet and the army... not what you expect in a fight against Russia...

That a general staff assesses strategic situations is not very indicative of anything given all sides considered mobilization time tables the deciding factor for a quick war.

You then have the emperor leave on a cruise (and most of the senior government for vacation btw), that's how much warplanning was present in July 1914. Most of the guys needed for planning were gone on holidays.

Sure there were hardliners and idiots and some of them in government but you make it very easy for yourself. You did not have to cite revisionists to come to the conclusion that the situation was far more muddied.

[hellheaven1987]

This is a very anachronistic view on the matter. Germany was not considered an autocracy by Great Britain until guess what? the naval race. Until the 1890 Bismarck's policy was that of a saturated German empire aka all territorial claims bein satisfied and the colonial race being rather timid. The rising tensions between Great Britain however were not solely based on the naval race but that every economic and demographic factor made Germany the next big power in Europe and that the British power structure after the Napoleonic Wars were in opposition to the rise of a new power.

Naval race is just one of sparks; the actual reason seems had to do with the Long Depression and how GB's leading economy in the world was seriously damaged during this time.

[Cyclops]

Naval race is just one of sparks; the actual reason seems had to do with the Long Depression and how GB's leading economy in the world was seriously damaged during this time.

The naval race was sparked by the UK's dreadnought programme, Germany merely tried to keep up and was well beaten in the dreadnought race by 1905.

The UK fought to keep German industry down, and Germany fought to keep German industry up, but also to keep the Russians out of Ostpreussen. In terms of benign rule, Germany was a far better place than the Romanov Empire: it just had a loony on the throne.

Once the war was on the German General Staff (and the Supremos directing it, Moltke, Falkenhayn, Ludendorff and Hindenburg) took an increasing role in the conduct of the war, sidelining the Chancellor and the Kaiser. It was more of a dictatorship than France or the UK for that reason.

[Ludicus]

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

The innocent people...I think a more pertinent question to ask would be: did the "good guys" ever lose a war?

[Stavroforos]

The United States.

[Gäiten]

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