I think, if they were trying to overthrow Versailles merely, they would have just declare it null, and not tried to conquer all their neighbors. My two cents.

"I think, if they were trying to overthrow Versailles merely, they would have just declare it null"

And with that, Thucydides is unmuted (I'm glad I saw that before I logged in). Welcome back to Earth, Thucy.

And indeed, why not simply repudiate Versailles? If Germany believed that the Entente was incapable of attacking in the defense of Poland, they should also believe that they were incapable of attacking to support Versailles.

Anyway, getting back to the original question, if I understand correctly, phil_a_s has the position that there is always a wrong side, but declares that "I don't think there is an objective way to measure it compatible with my moral values, so I made it one of them."

So is the answer to the question "No, one side is always wrong, but we take this as an axiom"?

"And indeed, why not simply repudiate Versailles?"

For the simple reason that German territorial losses and restrictions were a major component of Versailles.

" If Germany believed that the Entente was incapable of attacking in the defense of Poland, they should also believe that they were incapable of attacking to support Versailles."

The two are the same. Germany had no reason to believe the Entente was willing to uphold the Versailles Treaty, hence the escalation of the crisis with Poland.

"and not tried to conquer all their neighbors."

They sought to reclaim the territories lost in the first world war, and incorporate other territories which were deprived the right to self-determination (German Austria). The other territories were occupied, not annexed.

Oh excuse me, occupying your neighbor is perfectly fine if you don't annex them. Lmao. Are you anti-imperialist or not?

I think all wars are both a situation where both sides are right and wrong. because right and wrong are subjective. For example the people of japan truly believed that the war against the US was a just war, and the people of the US believed that they were fighting a just war. Only an ignorant person would try to find out who is wrong or right. the victor writes history. It is better to approach war in an academic sense with the thought that both sides have reasons for the conflict and that analyzing how the conflict began and how it ends will help us better find ways to prevent or end conflict in the future. for example appeasement to dictators is widely unfavorable today because we learned our lesson with Hitler. (who we subjectively see as bad)

"Oh excuse me, occupying your neighbor is perfectly fine if you don't annex them."

It's important to be accurate and not ideological with history.