The Kaiser was for many reasons a contemptible little man. But he was nothing like Hitler. For one; while he loved dressing up in military uniforms, he was very much a coward towards committing Germany to any war. I doubt the Kaiser and Hitler would've had much in common nor liked each other much.

I've tried to decide who I think was responsible for starting WWI. Various parties each seem to have their own share of guilt: * Gavrilo Princips, a somewhat dim-witted activist or radical of the "Occupy" type. Such an insignificant creature never again started such a disaster, until Obama started meddling in the Middle East. * The Serbian military -- they encouraged the radicals, and armed them (if I remember right). * Austria-Hungary - after the assassination, sent an ultimatum to Serbia that NO country could decently accept. * Serbia -- DID accept the ultimatum, with insignificant exceptions. This was a plus, an action to avert war. * Austria Hungary -- then refused to be placated or appeased, partly because * Germany -- egged Austria-Hungary on and gave them a "blank check," or green light, for whatever they wanted to do. That leaves aside all the mobilizations, where if one country mobilized, another had to, and no country would refrain from mobilizing. So I conclude, in my own mind, there's plenty of blame to go around, but if Austria-Hungary hadn't been so bloody-minded about the ultimatum, some accommodation could perhaps have been made.

In response to sackcloth, three of the five Tirpitz bills to expand the German navy were enacted after 1904 (the date of the formalisation of the Entente.) This includes all of the German Dreadnought class ships, the first of which was Nassau in 1907. Your point 4 is therefore invalid. The German doctrine was to possess enough of a navy to damage our own sufficiently to make Britain think twice before initiating war with Germany - and to prevent the humiliation of German civilian ships being raided as during the Boer War. Clearly in the event, German naval expansion did provoke a British response but this does not tell us the motive for it happening in the first place. Moreover, you ignore the French and Russian fleets, both of which in the absence of a German naval deterrent could be construed as a threat to Germany's north coast and colonies, even had Britain sat out the war. And especially had Belgium not become involved (clearly this WAS the Germans' fault), then a French landing in the north would have made sense to flank the almost certain stalemate in Alsace-Lorraine. Probably the better approach for German strategy would have been to sit tight on the Western front and let the French smash themselves to pieces in Plan 17, while going hell for leather in Russia. This could have avoided British intervention and the fleet would have been adequate to defend Germany and the colonies while posing a probing threat into the Channel and Northern Baltic. Even then, in the event of a war 'just' with France and Russia, a large modern fleet would be required. The failing of the General Staff was of hubris, which, by invading Belgium, led to nemesis eventually. But I don't think merely having a proper navy directly caused British involvement.

'The Kaiser said he was encircled, and he had a point. He started to expand his fleet, and the British public called for two Dreadnoughts to be built for every German ship'. OK, big problem here. The German Kaiser claims he has been 'encircled' by the 'Entente Cordiale', and so he builds up the High Seas Fleet. Point 1: The main threat to Germany (from a defensive perspective) is the French and Russian Armies. Point 2: Building up the navy does nothing to counter the specific danger of a two-front war with France and Russia. Point 3: Building up the navy will, on the other hand, antagonise the British, as it will be seen as a direct threat to the British Isles. Point 4: As a consequence, the British will solidify the 'Entente Cordiale' with France and make it an informal alliance, pledging to deploy the BEF in the event of war, and also making an agreement with the French so that their navy patrols the Med, allowing the Royal Navy to focus on the Channel and the North Sea. This is why you need military historians, Simon.