Was there a good side and bad side in ww1?

[Barnabas]

It seems to me that unlike ww2 (in ww2 the allies were clearly the good guys and the axis the bad guys), in ww1 the 2 sides were even in goodness and evilness....

So someone from a country not affected by the war would have no reason to choose one side over the other one

[Kuciwalker]

The side the USA was on was the good side, obviously.

[Patroklos]

It is hard for the average person to seperate the Germany of WWII from WWI, since normal history glosses over all German history except WWII in America at least. Oh, they do mention them one other time, the Hessiens (sp?) from the Revolution, so another reason to demonize them.

Even when you point out that Germany was the third of the major powers to declare war, for some odd reason people still claim they had more to do with the whole thing than the others. It is quite odd.

[Kropotkin]

Germany did get most of the blame after the war. With a distance of more than 80 years it doesn't seem that obvious. Of cource, Great Britain and France where democratic countries, Austria-Hungary or Germany was not. But that doesn't with necessity mean that they where "good guys", and they still had millions of people under the boot in their colonies.

And if you like to see it from the point of american high school history lessons it's hardly a suprise - the US was on the other side after all.

On the other hand, with your line of thought the soviet unions where the "good guys" in WW2...

[Dauphin]

It is odd that the American school system espouses good and bad. I was taught WW1 just "was". Specifcally the general impression given was that whilst the causes are debated, it was accepted that everyone was glorifying war expecting one to come. The actual carnage that followed was more a result of frustration and desperation of the commanders who couldn't cope with the stalemate they found themselves in.

[BeBMan]

Wasn't is caused by British aggressors? They were obviously the bad guys, as always.

[Andemagne]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Germany did get most of the blame after the war.

IIRC even the Treaty of Versailles, the one that ended WW1, says that germany was the sole cause of the war.

[yaroslav]

Germany did some very bad moves (diplomacy of the iron fist, building of a naval fleet big enough to make Britain nervous) that put France and Britan very close. But that is one thing, and the other is that Germany is to blame.

IMHO, had Germany be better at diplomacy, she may have found herself fighting France and Russia, not France, Russia and Britain.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Dauphin
It is odd that the American school system espouses good and bad. I was taught WW1 just "was". Specifcally the general impression given was that whilst the causes are debated, it was accepted that everyone was glorifying war expecting one to come. The actual carnage that followed was more a result of frustration and desperation of the commanders who couldn't cope with the stalemate they found themselves in.

Yeah, for some reason the American school system likes to espouse a good vs. evil narrative in just about everything. Nothing just "was" or had equal good and bad on each side. You don't get that stuff until late in high school, or, more likely college history classes.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by yaroslav
Germany did some very bad moves (diplomacy of the iron fist, building of a naval fleet big enough to make Britain nervous) that put France and Britan very close. But that is one thing, and the other is that Germany is to blame.

IMHO, had Germany be better at diplomacy, she may have found herself fighting France and Russia, not France, Russia and Britain.

Or told Austria to shut the fvck up and take care of their balkan business on their own rather than handing them carte blanche.

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Or told Austria to shut the fvck up and take care of their balkan business on their own rather than handing them carte blanche.

Or respected Belgium´s neutrality.....

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Yeah, for some reason the American school system likes to espouse a good vs. evil narrative in just about everything. Nothing just "was" or had equal good and bad on each side. You don't get that stuff until late in high school, or, more likely college history classes.

Blame myths about shining cities on hills, New Jerusalems and Manifest Destiny.


It's why y'll seem to expect your politicians to be plaster saints too, I think.

However, the German militarists had been pressing for an 'early war' to forestall Russian dominance- and Kaiser Wilhelm II had mental health issues. But then Tsar Nicholas was a mental incompetent easily persuaded by his wife, and the Turkish Sultan was borderline deranged. As for the House of Habsburg... and don't mention Alsace Lorraine and revanchists.

Of course the Brits were entirely blameless.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by yaroslav


Or respected Belgium´s neutrality.....

You don't honestly believe that.

[Zkribbler]

The U.S. was made sympathtic to the Entente cause by the persistent referrences to the Rape of Belgium by the "Huns."

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Yeah, for some reason the American school system likes to espouse a good vs. evil narrative in just about everything. Nothing just "was" or had equal good and bad on each side. You don't get that stuff until late in high school, or, more likely college history classes.

somehow Im kind of doubting that our Euro friends delved deep into the causes of WW1 at an earlier age than we Yanks do high school - they can correct me here.

I think we talk about the rights of the war, cause thats actually been a major theme in US history ever since, informing debates between isolationists and internationalists. For the US it did NOT just happen, it was a conscious choice to enter the war (based on the notion that the CP was wrong), as well as a conscious choice to reject the post war settlement (based on the notion that the CP wasnt as wrong as the allies said, and that the postwar settlement was unreasonable) and then a conscious choice to lean to Britain well before Pearl Harbor, (based on the notion that the post war settlement wasnt THAT unreasonable, and that the German reaction post 1933 WAS unreasonable), etc, etc.

As for the shining city on the hill, that was an interesting notion to begin with repeatedly applied in different ways. It can still be a very positive force in American life, I think.