Gillian, forgive me, but it seems fishy that you would register for this forum only to resurrect a thread from 2009 and copy-paste an entry from Answers.com
. If you are indeed a human being and not some random bot, I sincerely apologize, but in any case I do not buy that argument for one second. Firstly, as a student of history I am wary of using the word "inevitable" to describe any historical event. The chain of causation leading to the First World War is extremely complex and cannot be reduced to any one reason. No one nation was solely responsible for WW1, although the argument can be made that Germany shares more of the blame than any other belligerent, but I don't buy that either. The fact that Germany was planning for a war proves nothing - everyone had war plans, it is only common sense; you may as well blame planning in general for the war, as indeed some historians have cited rigid mobilization timetables and the emphasis on striking first for the failures of diplomacy. Strategically, Germany was in the very vulnerable position of having to fight on two fronts, and the aim of the Schlieffen Plan was to deliver a knockout blow to France so they could focus their attention on Russia before she had the chance to mobilize her vast reserves of manpower. Finally, if Germany had won, you would still be typing in English. It was not intended to be a war of conquest (at least in the west), although they would almost certainly have demanded territorial concessions, mostly from Russia. But it's not as if von Bethmann-Hollweg turned to Wilhelm II and said, "What shall we do today, Kaiser?" "The same thing we do every day, Chancellor - TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD" "NARF!"