Was either side in WW1 morally right?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Economical, political, so killing over money or power is better than killing over the cold blooded murder of a national figure? The way I see it, there's almost never a good excuse for a war.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Economical, political, so killing over money or power is better than killing over the cold blooded murder of a national figure? The way I see it, there's almost never a good excuse for a war.

No not better but more realistic, well , in todays world anyway. And true war is not moral it is a sign of incompetence .

[Darebirth]

Most wars do not tend to have a moral side, but as some guy once said, "History is written by the victorious." Basically, the countries that won the war will try to play it off as if they were in the right when in fact they were no more in the right than the other side.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Simonius That was just a handy excuse, an Austrian declaration of war on Serbia was most probably inevitable. .

Yes, because Germany realised that Russia and France were both rapidly catching up and on the verge of surpassing Germany/Austria-Hungary. Specifically due to increasing industrialization of Poland, whcih would give Russia the capability to fight the kind of stagnant trench war that was fought on the Western Front.