Who is to Blame for the Great War?

As David Kaiser points out in his article Germany and the Origins of the First World War, some historians such as Fritz Fischer assign blame for the start of World War I squarely on Germany. According to this argument Germany had designed to start a war because it would quell the domestic social unrest that was going on back home. But as Kaiser points out this is a misconception because most of the German leadership (as disunified as they may have been in other issues) preferred  to keep Germany out of War if they could because they knew that a war would only cause more internal social problems than it actually would solve. The conservatives in Germany especially realized this because they knew that the conclusion of a war tends to bring on domestic progressive changes, no matter if it results in victory or defeat. However that does not mean that such groups as the conservatives and even the central party did not see the need for Germany to try to expand its colonial reach, and build up its military, specifically the navy, all in the name of German prestige. But even then, those in command such as Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz( who is credit with the massive buildup of the German Imperial Navy) did not believe that Germany should go to war to achieve the prestige it so desired. As chancellor Bernhard von Bülow viewed it, Germany was well off as long as there was a perception that it was doing something to be a major world power. The problem with Bülow's view is that other world power such as Great Britain took this perception of Germany as increasing world power as a major threat to their interests. Germany's growing and increasingly more powerful Imperial Navy posed to the British the greatest threat of all to their superiority of the world's seas. This in turn would cause an arms race between the two navies which was also partially to blame for the start of the war. 
    This being said, I would like to add to Kaiser's argument that Germany did not start the war intentionally to quell internal social unrest because to propose such an argument ignores the fact that the First World war was culmination of different events that were not just concentrated in Germany or in western Europe. World War I had been ignited by Austria-Hungry's diverse empire crumbling apart, and Russia casting an eye towards the Balkan territories as the Ottoman empire slowly disintegrated just as much as it had been ignited by Germany's rise in militarism and world power. In other words to say Germany had caused World War I is to forget that the war was truly global and more than just a western Europe conflict.  

Bielefeld's Interpretation of German history.

Reading the different interpretations of how German history progressed through the 19th century and early 20th century, I find that some interpretations in my mind are over simplistic in their approach. The one that sticks out to me the most is the Bielefeld interpretation by Hans- Ulrich Wehler. While I do agree with the assessment that  the autocrats in Germany still held the majority of the political power and did everything to uphold  this poltical system, I do think that it fails to take into account the mass poltics equation that Blackbourn and Eley describe. I also feel that by making no mention of the geographical situation that Germany faced after becoming a unified State in 1871, the Bielefeld interpretation misses the fact that Bismarck had it in his best interest that Germany not go to war, because he understood better than most that a two front war would prove devastating to Germany. Wehler makes the argument that Bismarck would be willing to stir up conflict as his foreign policy if it meant that he would keep the masses distracted from any domestic issues at hand. Obviously these two theories contradict each other and to me the geographical theory makes more sense since Bismarck had actively sought to make treaties to prevent this two war front. Bismarck had earlier sought out trouble with other nations such as France and Austria, but most of this was before he helped unify Germany, and even then it was only done to create a unity among the various German States.

                The Point that the Bielefeld that I am the most skeptical though, is about how he says that the failure of the liberals in the 1948 revolution and beyond is at least partially to blame for why the Nazis were able to rise to power in the 1930’s. This is oversimplifying history and especially the causes of the rise of the Nazis in Germany.   It is interesting to ask the question of had the Germans won the First World War and Germany not have suffered through the economic hardships of the 1920s on top of being humiliated by the victorious Allied Powers, would the population been so willing to accept a call to the return of the past glories the Nazi’s offered? Saying yes, would mean that liberalism in Germany had indeed failed during the crucial period after Germany had become unified.  Depending on what your answer maybe, it will help to define if you agree with the Bielefeld theory or not.