Did The Right Side Of WW1 Win?

hmm, not to make a self-fulfilling prophecy, as I accept the question, but this is a tad controversial for the site. Far be it from me to argue for censoring though.

It is true, it seems to me, that ww1 is far more "gray" than black and white, compared to ww2.

admittedly, all I did was check wikipedia. however it seems that Serbia did not attack, the first shots being fired by a warship in response to Serbians blowing up a bridge between the countries. EDIT: this was after austria declared war. The point still stands and blowing up bridges is usually done by the defensive force?

As for the ultmatum, I must note that it asked for the destruction of school books and organizations that held an allegedly anti-austrian tone. total censorship, in other words. it also called for the firing of not yet named public officials and allowing Austrian police to enter Serbia.

In any case, I see Serbia at that point as a bullied proto-colony. While deciding to refuse Austria caused a horrible war, I can't really fault them at the same time for any actions they took.

I don't want to go to political things though; we're not going to discuss that

Imperial RomeBall, PzGermany24,
I think you two are answering different questions

Logan, I presume, is debating which side had the moral high ground (deserved to win)
Byzantion, on the other hand, appears to be questioning who fired the first shot.
Austria-Hungary, by posing an ultimatum that was (according to Austrian statesmen) intended to provoke war, geared for it
A-H also declared War first, so they formally started it.
However, documents reveal that the Black Hand were trained and sponsored by Serbia, so they are accountable to that.

The question I perceive Logan as debating is one that cannot be answered by what is called Positive (fact-based) analysis in my field of work

Err... because the last part of your username has it and it's the most sensible part to use to call you?

Well, can we really say if the right side won, forgetting about morality? If the allies did not win then WW2 might not occur and a lot of things would be different.
In terms of morality, there is also not much to say, since we all know WW1 is more of a "grey" war.
So I won't vote yet.

Fact: (credits to Extra Credits on Youtube)The guy who always prevented a war between A-H and Serbia was shot with his wife on a car... (yes, him)

I disagree with what you say about Russia. They should have back Serbia. They had allied with Serbia and came to thier aid when they needed it as they were supposed to. Russia honoured their alliance to Serbia which lets be real held no direct threat to Austria-Hungary. If Russia had have broken its alliance with Serbia and refused to come to its aid it would be looked down on by the International community as a lying and dishonourable country and its other allies (most notably France) would likely reconsider their own alliances.

It was only France and Germany entering the war (which they did because they chose to honour their promises to their allies) that escalated the conflict. What I believe should have happened is Austria should have sent more realistic and fair demands to Serbia which Serbia should have accepted and stoped helping any groups like the Black Hand.

Der Kaiserreich said "Yeah. But remember Austria-Hungary was egging for a war with Serbia so that's near impossible. Maybe if Franz Ferdinand was still alive he could have stopped it... oh wait ."

Yes, but if we are discussing who should have won, then Austria deliberately provoking war is a point toward the allies being the right side to win, as per the title. Though really, nobody won that war. (well, if you are a silly pacifist who cares about blood  )

Long ago, Picard said that I was debating who fired the first shot, while the OPs question was moral. Well, so was mine! Not only does trying to dominate a smaller country carry moral weight, but PzGermany24 said that the winners started the war by firing the first shot. If we can prove that in fact Serbia did not fire the first shot, then his entire argument falls into question (assuming he was favouring that side of the question)

As per the colonial argument, though its true that everybody at the time had a colony, we could argue what colonies are at stake. While the victors stole many colonies, this was merely a transfer of rule (ignoring questions of who was the best overlord) 

While instead, Serbia was an independent country, which I say was being offered a colonial treatment. Also, German government openly admitted to england before the war started that it would be casually invading Belgium in pursuit of France. Apparently this convinced the English not to remain Neutral, since Germany had no problem attacking belgium. 

There you have it, my continued reasoning long after I should have replied 

Did some Google-fu and found out that the first shot was either a British soldier in Belgium or an Australian fort in Melbourne trying to stop a German ship.