First World War.

  Anyone who can give the  number of people dead �n the first world war?With their nationalities please?

 No, all that was needed was to encircle germany and let her starve out slowly, on a defensive stand. Eventually the country would have collapsed, famie was already chronic there while food and equipments were flooding into France. And you get one thing wrong, at that time French forces morale was at a high, tanks and a/cs were arriving in large numbers. The amercans fvcked that war. They fought so long to let the wounded and starving animal escaped without giving the final blow. the war was over, they just need to be patient, 1 more year perhaps is all that war needed. Germany was starting to implode.

 You didn't read what I said properly. We don't need to attack, all we need was starved them out. That's France and the UK remained on defensive stance. the result is obvious, Germany was lacking in everything plsu you forgot about Italy also, the italian  and allies were succesful against on the austrian front. This mean germany would have been surrounded, while the bavarian and spartacist, communists etc were revolting internally. This war was over, they just didn't have enough patience.  France and Uk has more than 5 million soldiers available to germany 3 million, the germans weren't in position to attack. Since we have more artillery, more equipment more everything, we moved on them in a choking strategy. The german morale was very low, starvation etc would have done the rest. The pilots would have bombed cities to increase the chaos. France did take part in most attack after verdun also, but in smaller scale and usually we the other armies. But in the final blow 1 million men would have been available.

This site hasn't got reliable data. For example, Serbia had much more killed and mobilized soldiers (1.5 million Serbs died in WWI).

Of course Germany was to blame for WWI (or it's mostly their fault). They pushed Autro-Hungaria into war.

Have to disagree there.  The A-H political elites (and primarily the Hungarians), and the general staff (primarily Conrad v. Hoetzendorf) were the ones agitating for "preventive" war against Serbia.

Germany is to blame to the extent that the Kaiser and their own general staff let themselves be drawn into a war over the Balkans where they had no vital interests.  The weaker ally, A-H, had vital interests there, but not Germany.  The idiotic "Hamburg to Basra" railway project was not vital to Germany in any way....it looked good to some persons on the map. 

To be fair Germany is not soley responsible for this war. Thats not of course to say i condone what happened. But one has to look at the bigger picture.

To my mind the blame lies firstly with the system of alliances ie the Triple Entente and Triple Alliance. They determined the Fronts during the war and who would join the war.

But to pin it down to one person I pick not a politician or a leader. I look to the Serb who shot Crown prince Ferdinand of Austria dead in Czech. Austria declares war on the Balkans Germany being As ally comes to her aid and it goes from  there.

The strategy of economic warfare was tried by both sides, and was won by the Royal Navy.  The economy and food imports of the Central Powers were disastrously impacted by the blockade.  The submarine based strategy of Germany failed as it failed in WWII.

I do not know what the teacher in question thinks about the allies, but in actuality the British and French probably had double the manpower available to them due to their overseas empires and their command of the sea lanes.  The presence of US troops in France had more a psychological impact as their unfamiliarity with the new methods of warfare, and also their inexperience, hampered their usefulness.