I understand the vilification of NAZI Germany during and after WWII.
But why was Germany vilified and treated as the evil perpetrator at the end of WWI - especially considering that the initial antagonists were Austria and Serbia (although Germany did push Austria to be more belligerent than they may have otherwise been)?
WWI didn't exhibit the tremendous cruelty and inhumanity of WWII (even with the chlorine gas attacks).
Why wasn't WWI treated as just yet another costly and stupid war caused by jingoism and adventurism and why wasn't Germany treated as the guys who just happened to be on losing side in that war?
Related question: why wasn't Austria treated as harshly as Germany (I realize the Austro-Hungarian empire was dismantled but the Austrian remnant wasn't vilified the way Germany was)?
There is a huge amount to say in response to this question, not least with regard to the way in which wars in which entire nations mobilised for years tend to involve extensive propaganda, which is often focused on efforts to demonise the enemy, in ways that were not so typical of earlier smaller-scale wars fought by entirely professional armies. While you are waiting for fresh answers to your query, however, you might like to review an earlier response of mine relating to one other aspect of the answer, which is that the declared German war aims were so potentially revolutionary and extensive (vastly more so than were Austria-Hungary's) that it was hard to treat Germany as "just the guys who happened to lose the war" – especially as the Germans had given evidence of their intent in this regard in the east by imposing the treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest:
What did the Germans plan on doing with France and Belgium in World War 1?