I have a growing interest in 19th- and 20th-century German history; unfortunately, I'm currently long on enthusiasm and short on factual knowledge. My understanding of World War I has been that though the war used to be blamed entirely on Germany, the current attitude is that while Serbia lit the metaphorical match, and Germany and Austria-Hungary set it to the tinder, the whole European woodpile was already very dry. However, the Fischer Thesis, which I understand is widely accepted, once again lays the blame mostly on Germany. It isn't universally accepted, though, and much of the online material I've found says things along the lines of "the Fischer Thesis remains contentious to this day". What I'm asking, basically, is "if I were, hypothetically, to argue against the Fischer Thesis, how fast would I be laughed out of the building and made an example of in /r/badHistory?"
I suppose what I'd ask you is what you gain from placing blame on anyone, or absolving anyone else of blame? How is saying it's Germany's fault more enlightening, or more true, than placing the opening of the war in proper context, without judgment? And to what extent does culpability extend? I don't think even Fischer would argue that Germany meant to drag the entire continent and America into the struggle. What about the Armenian genocide; to what extent was that facilitated by the war, and to what extend does Germany deserve blame? Etc.
The Fischer thesis was conceived as the crowning, encompassing argument of a huge project. But by arguing it, you necessarily risk putting the cart before the horse and turning it into a nasty simplification of a very complicated issue.