The original comment stated that Germany was responsible for starting the two World Wars, not Austria. But to describe Austria as "a clearly aggressive country"

The original comment stated that Germany was responsible for starting the two World Wars, not Austria. But to describe Austria as "a clearly aggressive country" is totally inadequate to an accurate view of this history. Austria was a declining multi-ethnic empire with internal ethnic conflicts mostly concentrated in the Serbian Nationalist movement. The Serbs were in turn supported (prior to war) by a militarizing Russia (that allied with France) who was in geopolitical competition with Germany for warm-water ports via the Balkans (sound familiar?). If you were leading Germany at that time, you'd be worried about Russia's ambitions, too. You could do a similar analysis of the complexities that precipitated WWII, not least of these was the incredibly punitive conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. Read Keynes' "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" among many other books about how "stupid" that treaty was. Combine that with the incredible street-level social-political instability of the inter-war years, mass migration, Bolshevism, etc... and you might have a more nuanced answer about how wars are started and who is culpable. In any case, moralizing about war and geopolitics is a sort of category error, imho. What would you have had these countries do differently, I wonder?