A question in reference to the origin of WWI

Megan McArdle compares 'our torture policy' to the bombing of Dresden. My comment was to posit a 'commonality between the Dresden bombings and 'our torture policy' would seem to accept more innuendo than, well, fact to include for starters that the people affected by the bombing had next to nothing to do with WWII and the 'tortured' had an arguable likelihood of causing the kind of civilian killings visited us on 9/11 which was more like the Dresden bombing than anything else you have brought up. The laws of war, per my earlier comment, would seem to provide a legalistic 'war crimes' defense for Bomber Harris of Great Britain but that doesn't mean that what was done wasn't criminal in a humanistic sense. The Dresden bombing raises for me a sort of murderous sibling rivalry hypothesis with regard to the relation of Great Britain to Germany. This goes back to WWI and the diplomatic efforts of Britain to block Germany's rise. As I understand it, Britain was committed to defend Belgium should Germany invade; so war on the western front was Germany's choice by it's activation of the Schlieffen plan. Germany could have 'just' confronted Russia over its mobilization to aid the Serbs who were being attacked by the Austrians for supporting the anarchist killing of the Austrian Grand Duke. British action would seem justified there but, not knowing my history well enough, I wonder if there wasn't something more to the precipitation of conflict between Britain and Germany?' Anyone one who has further perspective on a diplomatic bind that Germany might or might not have been in, I would appreciate your comment.