Fay's ideas have some validity; there's more room in most discussions of the July Crisis today for Russia, Serbia and Austria-Hungary, and the creation of the Triple Alliance and Entente certainly aided in creating hostility and suspicion among the powers in the years leading up to war.

Beyond that, not much. Fay and others of the 'slither into war' or revisionist school were heavily influenced and reliant upon the records provided by the German Ausland's Amt, or Foreign Office. These were put out by the so-called 'War Guilt Division', created solely to supply records and histories that would distance the Kaiserreich from the events of 1914, and thus, as they believed, undermine the Versailles treaty. Annika Mombauer and Holger Herwig have written extensively on how the 30s essentially saw the losers write the history. No one or everyone was responsible, disembodied forces, the whole shebang. It was only in the 60s, with the writings of Fritz Fischer, that this orthodoxy was demolished, though it still gets some publicity today (Clark's The Sleepwalkers), and from my high school experience, it still dominates education in schools.

What NEEDS to be said is that the question of war guilt was founded in false premises. Article 231 NEVER says guilt:

"The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies."

It was followed by Article 232, which stated the Germans could NOT pay ALL the costs. Therefore, a committee would be set-up, and that question would be sorted out. EVERY TREATY included an article like Article 231, but NO ONE else made a deal of it save the Germans.

In a sense, 'war guilt' is pointless, because it implies that SOMEONE set about pre-meditated, to START a WORLD WAR. The Austrians set out to crush the Serbs; the Germans agreed to back them to the hilt against the Russians. The Russians mobilized after the shelling of Belgrade, but the Germans subsequently declared war on both France AND Russia, leading to the Schlieffen Plan, and to Britain's involvement.

Thus, the modern consensus is that primary RESPONSIBILITY lies with Austria-Hungary and Germany in that order. The Austro-Hungarians Chief-of-Staff, Conrad von Hotzendorf, had already decided on a war with Serbia in 1913. In July 1914, based on flimsy evidence of Serbian STATE involvement in Franz Ferdinand's death, Austria issued an ultimatum MEANT TO BE REJECTED. The Serbs, encouraged to accept ANYTHING they were given, accepted the Ultimatum, with the qualification that investigations should be led by the Hague, not Vienna. Edward Grey was offering a four power council at Geneva, and Cambon in France and Sazonov in Russia were accepting of this. Vienna refused, and Berlin backed them all the way, moving against France, Belgium and Luxembourg without provocation.

Moreover, the Alliances did not really function in 1914. Britain had non-binding 'understandings' with Russia and France, IMO the idea of the 'Triple Entente' is itself an exaggeration. France entered not to aid Russia, but because France was INVADED. Russia entered but war was declared on THEM by Germany, and Austria attacked the Serbs. Britain entered to support Belgium, ultimately to aid France, but this was all to ensure that the Germans could not dominate the continent. Italy backed out, rightly citing the Alliance as defensive, while it's partners were the aggressors. Neither Germany nor Austria-Hungary was attacked, neither was obliged by the Triple Alliance to aid the other. In short, while the Alliances were important in the context of 1914, they didn't factor in as they are assumed to, i.e. once one ally is in, the others HAVE to support it.

Karl Kautsky and Kurt Eisner were socialists in Germany; after the war, they compiled documents which served as damning evidence against German innocence, but these were drowned in the subsequent apologist publications that the Weimar government supported, while Eisner was murdered by right wing, Freikorps thugs in Munich during the short lived soviet there. Luigi Albertini, Bernadotte Schmitt and Pierre Renouvin all wrote histories in the thirties and forties, using primary sources, in Albertini's case interviewing many leaders (like Kaiser Wilhelm!) who were involved in the events; these to assigned blame to Berlin and/or Vienna. Fritz Fischer uncovered still more info in the 60s, like the minutes of the December 8th, 1912 'War Council' and Bethmann-Hollweg's 'September programme' that further damned Germany. Gunther Kronenbitten, a contemporary German historian, has also written extensively about the damning evidence against the Austro-Hungarians, as have many other historians.

The answer is, in short, yes but largely no. The disembodied forces (nationalism, imperialism, journalism) continue to factor into the context, the Alliances are important to the political climate, but in July 1914, they did not act as they should have: as RESTRAINTS.

The consensus on 'War Responsibility' lies with Vienna and Berlin. No crisis, no violence, no WAR need have taken place, and their ignorance of the dangers of general conflagration condemned Europe to it's bloodiest war ever (at the time); a war that, given Germany's subsequent war aims, the Entente (later Allied, then Allied and Associated Powers) could NOT afford to lose.