I think that things are just not black and white.
I'm very much personally on the scale of deal with things as they ought to be (leading by example, etc), at least with people that I have a personal stake with, until proven that I can't deal with them on that level. I try to make a judgement call at the point when a person is about to cross that threshold, and then, either keep them on the other side, or cast aside all doubts once they are on the other side.
That line becomes more discerning and farther out as it affects more people. If I make a wrong assessment about something dealing with me, it affects me, so I'm a bit looser. As the scope of potential damage increases, my leeway becomes smaller (i.e. I'll take chances with myself, that I would never take with my family).
But on a meta-level, I just don't see how that can work with so much at stake. These decisions affect so many people, that to take that kind of chance seems rather reckless IMO. I think that's one of the reasons for the extent of WWI and WWII. People didn't want to err on the wrong side, and thus gave Germany a lot more leeway than they ever should have, especially in the case of WWII. The other countries played by one set of rules, while Germany played by another. To take that further, even when things got dirty, there were some lines that were not crossed. I think that is an important distinction to make.
But I ramble...
Germany is an interesting case. Incidentally, they just finished paying back WWI reparations a little while ago.
But WWI was sparked by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, and not much would have stopped that. But there was no "right" or "wrong" in WWI, unlike WWII where Germany was simply evil. For Germany, WWII was justified as getting back for WWI injustices, and nothing would have stopped Germany then. Yalta was a mess. But it laid the foundation for half a century of tenuous peace.
In WWII, Hitler would not allow the use of chemical weapons on the battle field as he thought it was inhumane/dishonorable/whatever. Kind of messed up as he had no problems using it elsewhere.
Nobody wanted another war, and letting Germany run all over Austria and the east (until Poland) was a lot of slack. (Austria welcomed Germany, so there was no real issue there.) The sitzkrieg wasn't really by choice as the allies had no real power to do anything at the time (debatable, but close enough).
I'm rambling there, and I'm not really seeing the relevance of WWI & II there. Are you suggesting that Wikileaks could spark something like another world war? I can't see anyone letting that happen. There's too much at stake. Chemical and biological weapons are in play, and they would be used by someone. Nobody wants to see that, except for the lunatics that would use them.
But espionage is always ongoing and never stops. THIS time the espionage is for EVERYONE and not just for a "side", though it is against a side, the US. I hope there is more of it against other "sides" for everyone.
Wikileaks has done a lot of good already though.
It has exposed (or cast suspicion on) Julia Guillard, the Australian
Prime Minister, for the lying, conniving witch she is. It has also allowed her the opportunity to open her mouth and prove that she's brain damaged. On numerous occasions. She'll do it tomorrow again in all likelihood.
Wikileaks has exposed Shell dealings in Nigeria.
Wikileaks has brought to light MORE BP disasters.
It's doing a lot of good in exposing
all over the place.
While it is somewhat reckless as you point out, I think it will simply force people to behave better.