Of course, one could mention the other startling violations of international law that undermine claims that the allies had clean hands such as the British minining of the North Sea and the starvation blockade but that's another issue.
“You made the claim that Germany set out to ‘conquer’ Europe in 1914. Provide the evidence that this was in any way a German war aim”
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I know it was a German war aim to conquer the European continent because they actually tried to conquer the European continent. That was the result of starting the war.
“because it ‘went to war’ is not proof.”
Yes it is. It is absolute, incontrovertible, undeniable proof. That is, given the dimensions of the war and the fact that they started it.
“BTW, your rationization for the violation of Greek neutrality does not hold water. If two parties are having a war, that doesn’t justify the violation of the rights of a third party.”
I didn’t say it did. All I said is that Germany’s violation is ever moreso notable than your Greek example because it started the war. If ever you wonder why the Greek incident is less famous, and why it is hardly ever brought up, just remember that little fact.
“Of course, one could mention the other startling violations of international law that undermine claims that the allies had clean hands such as the British minining of the North Sea and the starvation blockade but that’s another issue.”
None of those violations STARTED THE WAR! It boggles my mind how you fail to understand the significance of that.