[The German] bid for continental supremacy was certainly decisive in bringing on the European War ...

A.J.P. Taylor, The Struggle for Mastery in Europe (1954

Here lies the crucial point, before 1914, Belgium etc. There had been negotiations between the British and German governments to become allies against France. The official reason given for their failure was about the German fleet. Nothing about human rights, of course (haha!). The obvious truth is that each of the governments involved decided that they could get a larger piece of the cake if they risked a shootout - alliances yet to be wielded. If the fleet had been the true reason, the countries could have called for a public arbitration, which would either have brought about a compromise (like the one between Britain and France, mistitled "Entente"), or identified one party as the aggressor. Instead, British propaganda said Germany wanted continental supremacy, and German propaganda said that Britain (and France etc.) wanted to kick them off the table entirely.

Supremacy in this context did not mean involvement in other countries' domestic affairs, but influence in Africa, sea trade, monopolies (then enforced by military power), and other economic issues. The exact stakes are not known to me, but many think that the fleet thing was a red herring, aimed at the propaganda machine. Anyway, Britons had sung for such a long time that if their government did not rule the waves they would all become slaves, that they started to believe it in reality.

Someone, I think it was on radio, compared Germany's role then to China's now.

My above analysis is based on information that is essentially undisputed. The reason why some people, including historians, come to different moral conclusions is entirely political-philosophical. Regarding countries as if they had a single will is the "original sin" of nationalism; anyone committing it publicly is a deluder, regardless of his academic merits.

To sum up, the reasons for WWI are such that none of the governments involved can be seen to have protected their peoples as they should. This would even be true if their military leaders had been geniuses truly devoted to their task. Those who won were not the soldiers, not even the surviving ones (if we disregard the diminished competition for the girls' favour).