The War of 1914: An Avoidable Catastrophe - Sean McMeekin
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 июн 2024
- Sean McMeekin is Professor of History at Bard College in Annandale-on-Hudson, N.Y.
Rejecting earlier accounts of the outbreak of World War I, which emphasized structural factors or German ‘premeditation,’ McMeekin proposes instead a series of contingent occurrences stretching from the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on June 28 to the British ultimatum to Berlin on Aug. 4, 1914. Far from fated by the alliance system or the arms race, the war of 1914 was an eminently avoidable catastrophe brought on by the opportunistic scheming by a small handful of statesmen, often driven as much by personal complexes and rivalries as by compelling reasons of state. Though aware, in some sense, of the risks they were running, none of the men responsible could have imagined the scale of the human catastrophe they were about to unleash.
Presented November 7, 2014 as part of the National World War I Museum and United States World War I Centennial Commission 2014 Symposium, "1914: Global War & American Neutrality."
The Symposium was held in association with The Western Front Association East Coast Branch and the World War I Historical Association. Sponsored by Colonel J's, the Neighborhood Tourist Development Fund and Verlag Militaria.
For more information about the National WWI Museum and Memorial visit theworldwar.org
I watched every single talk I could find on WW1 origins. This one is by far the best: unbiased, insightful, and well presented.
I hope you’re right, I’ve watched 2 other lectures from this institution that were heavily biased against the Axis and only used Allied sources
Glad there's someone out there with the same hobby
You must have seen an awful lot then because I’ve found hundreds of not thousands. I’ve been listening for ten minutes so far and he seems to be pontificating a lot
@@streetracer2321 your meant the triple entente and the triple alliance
I preferred Christopher Clark’s
"If any ask us why we died, tell them: 'Because our fathers lied'". - Rudyard Kipling, surveying the grave of his son John Kipling, killed in WWI, a heartbreaking story.
A sad story indeed. The German General Erich Luddendorf,(Quartermaster General, basically 2nd in command) also lost a son in that war. Unfortunately we only know what they had to say because they were famous. Imagine what Kipling said multiplied a couple million times and we can get a small sense of what almost every parent in Europe felt after that war. Not surprising that the British and French went to almost any length to avoid war with Germany in the 1930s.
@@Styx8314 Understandable for sure. Losing a kid at 19 or 20yo, maybe his first day on the front lines would be awful.
Can’t help but see parallels.
Despite a slight Allied bias, these Pershing lectures have taught me so much about WW1 that I only had a surface level understanding of. Mind you, I still have lots of digging to do, but these lectures and the other recommended videos YT has been suggesting me recently has really broadened my understanding and knowledge of the World War. And now I have much more questions too! Its interesting how alot of this knowledge actually has links to the modern day too -way more than I had originally thought.
Pershing and WW1 memorial YT channel videos/lectures * i meant to say
At least for Europe and the Middle East/North Africa, almost every international border has it's origin in the various peace treaties at the end of the first world war.
I guess the way that the German high command handled their western front campaign, invading Belgium so violently, reflected undeservedly on every German citizen at the time.
That beeping is making me mad enough to want to send an unanswerable ultimatum to Serbia...
Watch also Christopher Clark's lectures, an Australian historian from Cambridge (England)
From Cambridge, Australia or an Australian at Cambridge? ;)
@@4OHz An Australian at Cambridge, he is currently Regius Professor of History at Cambridge University.
If you enjoyed Dr McMeekin's lectures, I posted a playlist from Bilkent University with sixty lectures in International Relations. He is encyclopedic in his knowledge and his presentation is engaging and will hold your interest consistently.
Love,
David
Thanks for posting the playlist. Dr McMeekin is excellent. Are there "missing" lectures in the beginning topic of Why The West? There seems to be a skip from 3 to 4 and then there is no summary of all the factors that may explain Why The West.
I found an entire course on International Relations from Bilkent University on Cosmo Learning. 60 lectures, and listed as Bilkent/Sean McMeekin
"Complete list"
Hope that helps!
David vonKettering That is the playlist I was referencing. it feels to me that not every lecture was recorded. Do you agree? Again, great lectures. Thanks.
I am sure some of the lectures were truncated, but the overarching theme addresses that eventually
David vonKettering I just made it to the beginning of the second series which opens in 1916 and discusses America' s entry into WW1. Does he discuss further Why The West? These are some of the best lectures I have found online.
Interesting, I like how he says the events of July are important. Pity he ran out of time before going in to detail about the British.
While all the rest of the theory’s, discuss the factors between the various alliances. There had been several crisis prior to this particular crisis. This is the one which set the war off.
I really liked this presentation. Normally these lectures are so monotone and subdued. This guy is not afraid to get fired up about it. Very good speaker. Very engaging.
If you like history in the style of a tabloid, try the Daily Mail
Every time I hear the story, I have to marvel at what a shambolic assassination that could unleash such an Armageddon.
Yea but nobody made anybody go to war. That was just a good excuse.
@@1984isnotamanual true. That's one of the reasons people say that the war was inevitable
Great presentation, puts a different spin on it. Especially interesting was the Italian war with Turkey and the muslim refugees
Digmen1 infact I
was a bit dissapointed he did mentioned the Dodecanese islands
@@fralencemelograno he is a little biased. Serbs, Bulgarians and Greeks are fighting to throw out the Ottomans who had been ravaging their lands for centuries and this lecturer is saying their (Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarian) action is "aggression". What a load of crap. Then you get to see why he is biased. His wife is Turkish.
@@rjpadgarrahn2649 you sound biased saying they ravaged the land
@@rjpadgarrahn2649 thought he said she was a refugee from Bulgaria?
Yes, The Guns of August is still my very favorite book that illustrates the stupidity of man kind.
I thinks Tuchman said the French and Brits mowed down the German troops and they piled up like cordwood. It made me sick. It is always leaders who take their people to the slaughters. Will people ever realize that politics is violence and political government is the bane of mankind? Political government is Satan's wickedness and it should be terminated/abandoned. Voting is an act of violence. No one should use force to make another person go to war and no one should sanction politicians to use such force. All the Tsar needed to do was just say no to war. Same with the Kaiser and the French and the Brits and Wilson and the Canadians and Australians and the colonials.
that book is trash, well written, but bad history.
And no, they didnt mow down the Germans, the brits ran away... read:
www.amazon.com/dp/B01BY3039Y/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Actual history
It's rare to find an accomplished historian who is also an outstanding speaker. This was excellent. And his book, July 1914 is a great read.
The problem for so many is if you don't have the command of some fifteen languages you are really just accepting and deleting stuff written in English before.
Can’t they translate them? There’s been a lot of books written on it
When I grow up , I want to be a laid back authority .
So does he
I have also read Sean McMeekin’s “July 1914” My takeaways:
1. Military alliances rarely work to the benefit of the stronger power. They are poor deterrents to war and oftend expand a war once it starts beyond what would have happened without an alliance.
2. Never give your ally a blank check and keep an eye on them.
3. Multiethnic nations (in this case Austria-Hungary) really don’t work that well.
You’re (or McMeekin) really off on number 3.
Well said .
@@hyethga Yeah, I don't think that was McMeekin's conclusion at all. Not sure how any part of his work supports the view that multi-ethnic nations don't work (whatever that means)
Sean McKeekin delivers a tour de force; his delivery is coherent, focused, bright and never lagging in interest. He assumes his audience is intelligent, and proceeds to talk fluently without any annoying vocal tics and mannerisms. If only most lecturers would follow his example. Plus, the sound system is all that you want. As for content, I am not qualified to dispute anything he says, but it all seems to bear scrutiny, and I especially like that he quite easily expressed his less than total agreement with the sainted Barbara Tuchman.
Agree on all counts.
If you don't find this clown annoying, then you must be a pretty annoying person yourself. Listen to Margaret McMillan and Christopher Clark on World War I and you won't praise this clown, who actually claimed that he was "introduced" to WW1 by Tuchman. Do you not realize how unlikely that is? Impossible in fact?
And where did you get the idea that Tuchman is "sainted"? She is hardly the most respected historian. Well-known? Yes. Sainted? No. And who would want to be associated with that cult anyway?
I have always thought that the Russians were as much to blame as anyone.
@Bob W, I agree. The Tsar did not have to mobilize. The Russian Armies were huge and Germany could never have conquered Russia. The Tsar probably thought this was an opportunity to seize control of the access to Mediterranean Sea.
If you really thought so, then you are either an idiot or a fascist biased towards Russia.
In fact, this is very funny, Russia is accused of having its own imperialist goals in this war, the Turkish straits, and also that Russia mobilized before Germany. But the fact is that the Russian mobilization was a response to the mobilization of Austria-Hungary, that is, one of the countries of the central powers carried out the mobilization earlier than anyone else and thereby provoked Russia.Yes, Russia really had imperialist goals in this war, but the fact is that absolutely all countries had them, for this, Italy even changed the side of the conflict, since she was promised the territory of Austria-Hungary and the German colonies in Africa, in case of victory. France wanted to get Alsace and Lorraine, which she lost after the Franco-Prussian war, at the same time, and took revenge for this very war. Britain wanted to gain a foothold on the continent and was frightened by the German fleet and after the war she received all the German colonies. As proof of the imperialist goals of other states, you can simply look at the world map, before the First World War and after, each of the victorious countries took a piece from the losing powers.And Russia did not force Britain and France to enter this war, it was their deliberate decision
Yes, the Russians are always to blame for everything, then and now, if there’s something wrong it’s the Russian’s fault
Hello from a fellow McMeekin, one of the rarest names on the planet! Brilliant video, thank you. 👍
Good lecture
The only hope of Germnan victory was to defeat France and Russia in detail. So the Shliffen plan meant that the Germans needed to defeat France quickly and then wheel around to face the Russians as they completed their mobilization. Thus Russian mobilization meant general war; I don't think this was understood in Russia.
The fact that the ONLY German plan for war with Russia was to INVADE FRANCE was a bit daft....
I was enjoying this lecture until it became obvious that due to copyright the slide presentation was not filmed. The slides are of course an important integral part of the lecture and assist in illustrating and understanding the topic. Without them it becomes impossible to continue watching while the speaker continually looks at and makes reference to them.
No, from about 15 mins when he starts using the sides they’re filmed
this is very good
Excellent presentation!
I think you can argue that it was a roll of the dice...or you could argue that conditions were wrong for maintaining peace in the continent and it was just a matter of time.
I believe the Archduke’s driver had trouble turning around when the wrong turn was realized because the car DIDN’T have a reverse gear.
"A World Undone" contends the assassins were ordered to stand down but did not and that a Serb official even sent the Austrians a warning.
T.G Otte poses that question too in his (excellent) 2014 book "July Crisis. He points out it would be in both the Serbian and Austrian interests to deny that such a warning was sent. But he doesn't have a firm conclusion on if a warning was sent or not
They certainly warned the archduke not to come and not to have a parade but he dismissed their concerns, even after the first attempt, so they seemed to have some idea there could be an attempt on his life
When I first studied WWI in 7th grade, I'd never heard of Austria-Hungary before and got this mental imagine of Julie Andrews (as Maria von Trapp) ruling an empire jointly with Zsa Zsa Gabor.
Ww1 was "avoidable"? How I dont know this angle? I must be dumb.
48:42 Le Marseillaise, a great anthem of Lèse-majesté
Nice description.
@Tananjoh, what is the origin of the Marseillaise? Who were the people who originally sang it?
Ay, hindsight is a wonderful gift, if you're lucky enough to live that long.
Thank you very much for the video!
( I think that nothing that happened could have been avoided ...
Unless we accept the theory of infinite universes... 😏 )
When you read things like "we didn't want anymore Serbs and therefore didn't want to go to war". I think of Hitler saying "I don't want any Czechs", after annexation of the 'sudettenland'. He still took them 6 months later though. Not to mention the fact that one can wage war without annexation of land. There are other issues.
Less than a quarter way in and he's already disparaged three other history books. Doesn't quite make me trust his angle.
Excellent insight - incredible entertainer - brought history to life!!
War was not considered as something to avoid by certain states.
It was so long since Europe had seen a multi-state war that no one was around to remember how horrible it had been or to imagine how much worse it was going to be because the modern armies were mechanized and, since it was such an inventive era, that new horror weapons could and would be developed quickly.
Wish my nephew and niece were taught history (or had it brought to life) like this (which from their point of view might also save them from their uncle’s ravings!). Mind you, the politically correct syllabus might be more the problem even for the best and most enthusiastic teachers.
yes, there might have been part of some of the lectures truncated; but I don't look a gift horse in the mouth! :)
The Franco-Russian alliance before 1914 is the ultimate "realpolitic" revanchest marriage of convenience.
On the night of the 30th of July 1914, one day before the war exploded Kaiser Wilhelm II feeling entrapped by a seemingly inevitable march of events mused to himself quietly, desperately, hopelessly:
"Frivolity and weakness are going to plunge the world into the most frightful war of which the ultimate object is the overthrow of Germany for I no longer have any doubts that England, Russia and France have agreed among themselves, knowing that our treaty obligations compel us to support Austria, to use the Austro-Serb conflict as a pretext for waging a war of annihilation against us. In this way the stupidity and clumsiness of our ally Austria is turned into a noose.
So, the celebrated encirclement of Germany has finally become an accepted fact, the net has suddenly been closed over our heads and the purely anti-German policy which England has been scornfully pursuing all over the world has won the most spectacular victory which we have proved ourselves powerless to prevent while they, having us despite our struggles all alone into the net through our loyalty to Austria, proceeded to throttle our political and economic existence. A magnificent achievement, which even those for whom it means disaster are bound to admire".
The Kaiser was incapable of such thinking. He called the King of England a devil !!
We're witnessing the start of ww3 and no one seems to notice the parallel with 1914.
Actually there was a whole conference on it in Belgrade in 2014, and there’s American lectures arguing the opposite
It seems to me that the fact it was "avoidable" is irrelevant. The historical record is not totally clear, of course, but it certainly strongly suggests that the decision makers in Germany wanted -- and precipitated -- a war. Indeed, they had very valid strategic reasons for doing so.
Yes... if you ignore the Russian papers, and the lies on UK and French records... lol
If seems to me that Russia and France have large dollops of culpability too.
And Britains failure to restrain the above or use its neutrality to better effect!
Britain should never have got involved in a war centred on the Balkans !
I’d also add there were many people who were shocked that Britain was giving support to Russia and that if Germany lost Czarist Russia would be right in the middle of Europe
They have Austria a blank cheque to go to east with Serbia then all went on holiday to Norway. The Austrians wanted a war with Serbia but would ever have gone ahead with it without German support
@@seanmoran2743 the British went in because of the invasion of Belgium and because they didn’t feel they could go back on their word to the french. Gray wasn’t the greatest foreign minister either, I don’t think he ever went abroad
Wow! Those dastardly Germans affirmed the indisputable truth that Austria-Hungary was completely within its sovereign rights to retaliate against a power that committed an act of war against them through a state-sponsored terrorist proxy. The travesty!
This did nothing to change the basic, widely-known interpretation of the war origins (i.e. Austrian/German). He supposedly "proves" Russian catalyst, but it simply reduces to him saying "Russia should have backed down!" .... Why not Germany? Or Austria?
He is American, and details at the outset your standard charge of 'guilt' against Germany/Austria ( germany built a navy so they clearly wanted war with UK etc) only to shade the conflict in Grey tones zeroing in on the very compelling evidence of 'guilt' among the French (loans to Serbia in order to buy munitions from France; loans to Russia to build railways along german/Russian front for deployment of troops; Morrocan Crisis) and Russia ( Serbs accepted austrias conditions but Russia stepped in, pushed them to reject knowing they'd have full Russian and French military support). The evidence that Germany did not want war: following the assasination, Kaiser Wihelm writes the Serbs had finally blundered horribly; that the UK and Russia would split from the Triple Entente because a fellow monarch had been killed ( the monarchs were all inter-related); this was the moment Germany issues the infamous 'blank cheque' to Austria because they feel fully confident that their blank cheque would be matched by cheques issued from the UK and Russia. When this failed to happen, Kaiser Wihelm/Germany frantically call 'Bertie' and 'Nicky' to convince them to 'sit on the sidelines' with Germany, and just let the Serbs and Austrians fight - a 'confined war'. The UK and Russia refused. The War documents from Germany are quite clear: Von Moltke among others pleaded with Kaiser Wilhelm that IF war was inevitable, the longer Germany waited, the less likely they could win in the face of growing French, and particular Russian, mobilization and preparedness. Any war after 1912 would prove disastrous for Germany. There is the famous anecdote: Von Moltke was planting trees on his estate when he turned to his son and excaimed: 'what was the point? Only the Russians would be able to see them grow'. Why the pessimism if, as you and others contend, Germany welcomed this war? The pessimism was due to the fact Germany was fiighting a war on two fronts. All sides planned for the same tactic: France and Britain would pin Germany on the West while victory would come from the massive Russian infantry which would steam-roll a divided German force spread over two fronts. That Russia proved a disappointment doesn't negate that all participants thought this. It is THE major reason France cultivated relations with Russia, a nation that all European powers evaluated as the most medievalist of the european nations and most antithetical to French Republican values. They did so as part of a Revanche war against Germany following 1871 ( which the French started over a telegram of all things) which cost them Alsace-Lorraine and every French Premier made if their mission to reclaim. Finally, there is well documented evidence where Germany tried to avoid any entanglements in the Balkans. Bismarck predicted that a major european war might explode there and his Insurance and Reinsurance Treaties with Austria and Russia were Germanys attempt to keep these two powers in check. Christopher Clark notes that Austrian diplomats were constantly demanding more support from Germany but the Germans rebuffed them; Germany, especially prussian-led Germany, were not warm to Austria. Indeed, the documents show Germany sent overtures to Russia that they were willing to leave the Balkans to the Russians if that would ensure harmonious relations between the two and break the French-Russian Entente. Duplictious? Yes. But hardly intent for War in the Balkans
The origins of the war were purposefully provoked by the Franco-Russian-Serbian alliance even if it is granted that Austria-Germany caused the de facto outbreak. Pro-war forces within the prior-mentioned countries were as active, if not more, as pro-war forces within the latter-mentioned countries
@@user-hu3iy9gz5j A statement completely contradicted both by facts and by a basic analysis of their situations. Think about it: who has more need to start war in 1914?
To summarize the following, in 1914 it's against the Entente's interest to go to war. But if you wait just a few years later, say 1917, that completely changes. So why 1914, then?
Germany: a nation whose leadership thinks it has only until 1916 before it will automatically lose any war against its biggest neighbor, which desperately wants to acquire lebensraum from said neighbor by force, and which believes that it will permanently lose Great Power status if said neighbor is allowed to continue modernizing and industrializing. A nation which will fabricate a hoax (Nuremberg aircraft) in order to declare war against a non-belligerent nation.
Austria: a nation that has desperately seeking a casus belli against Serbia for the last decade, whose leaders believe the genocidal destruction of Serbia is vital to Austria's very survival as part of efforts to suppress its Slavic population.
Russia: a nation which has lost confidence in its military after its last war, and started massive military reforms which are not scheduled to finish until 1916-1917. A nation whose political elite is very pro-German, and views their alliance with France in the same way Americans would view allying with a communist nation in the Cold War.
France: a nation which has lost interest in retaking Alsace-Lorraine and has been restoring diplomatic relations with the Germans for some time now, and whose leadership is keenly aware of its own military disadvantage against the Germans, especially with what they know about the Russians' problems.
Britain: a nation whose economy relies on strong trade with all of Europe in which a ravaged Germany is economically bad for Britain (see 1920-21 depression), whose idea of international diplomacy requires a balance between the Austro-German camp and the Franco-Russian camp to work.
I believe he mischaracterized has Robert Massies premise here. He acknowledges that the Germans had lost the dreadnought race. What I took from it was Anglo-German relations were so damaged that it made any rapprochement almost impossible.
Read Christopher Clark's Sleepwalkers. The argument about the importance of the naval race is over-exaggerated (propaganda for why Britain was justified to go to war against imperial germany). By 1914, England is fully confident they had seen this threat off. As McMeekin confirms, the Germans stopped production a good decade before war breaks out while england keeps growing her navy. Is it possible that the Germans were being truthfull? That they built their navy to protect mercantile interests across the globe? Certainly England was confident they had 'won' here. So much so, that Clark notes three very important developments that took place in London. 1. The English were growing more and more estranged with Russian maneuvers in the Bosphorus and these were colliding with British interests. 2. Clark notes the real reason the UK joined the Triple Entente was to monitor RUSSIAN actions ( 'keep your friends close; your enemies closer') as they threatened the Bosphorus 3. Clark notes the UK were, by 1914, prepared to seek a rapprochement with Germany. A major summit had been scheduled with dignitaries and captains of industry in attendance. The assassination occurred a few short months before this event occurred. What might have been? That all courts had spies monitoring the enemy ( and their own allies) is well documented. Just a few weeks before the assassination, the French Premier meets his Russian counterparts to explore the possible scenarios that could bring both nations into war. The assassination follows.
_> As McMeekin confirms, the Germans stopped production a good decade before war breaks out while england keeps growing her navy._
So in other words, they "stopped production" at or before 1904, a year before Dreadnought even came out? What are you smoking?
_> Is it possible that the Germans were being truthfull? That they built their navy to protect mercantile interests across the globe?_
Well, in his memo to the Kaiser in 1897 explaining his strategic vision, Tirpitz explicitly ruled out this idea because Germany didn't have the global network of coaling stations that Britain did, and said that the High Seas Fleet would have to "unfold its highest battle function between Heligoland and the Thames".
Effective, informative, and useful in the extreme. Thanks for posting!
Outstanding presentation.
Some of the men did indeed know the scale of human catastrophe they were about to unleash, they were surprised and dismayed that the catastrophe turned out lesser than they had envisaged.
Who?
Sources?
Lmao
Weak leadership on all sides failed to pull strongly enough on the reins
ok
Who wanted to avoid it you say ?
Absolutely nobody, apart from the poor soda dying in it
BY Sean Mc Meeken, it was the Keiser Wilhelm, German king and the Hungarian politician and prime minister Istvan Tisza. Ya, I believe that. Germany and Austria wanted that war sooooo much. I don't believe anything this "historian" is saying, typical American propaganda, plus his snide remarks about the Serbs and Russians speaks volumes about the guy.
Unfortunately London did not understand how "balance of power" works.
*Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".*
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the *strongest continental power/alliance* the rival in peace/enemy in war.
*London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...*
*London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.*
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, *oppose* every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World *for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea* and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
*What could possibly go wrong?*
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a *"financial Dunkirk”.* The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate.* And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. *By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."*
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves *how "empires" tick,* because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
*The American Century.*
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
*Fill in the gaps.*
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised. "Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
You mean it’s American’s fault?
Glad to see that you're malding in comment sections as usual.
If this guy is a good a writer as he is a speaker I'll be buying all his books!
I am currently half way through his book on Stalin's role in WWII. It is excellent.
"Oh coitus! We forgot about the BALKANS!!!"-some European diplomat.....probably
a general boredom among the participants and poor planning by the Great General Staff.....
In 1925, an unknown but providential French General by the name of Alexandre Percin gave an interview to a French rag, he said:
"I took a personal part in the winter of 1910-11 in a great campaign organized by the Superior Council of War, of which I was then a member. The question was not discussed as to whether we should follow the German lead in Belgium's territorial violation and if necessary, even preceed the Germans ourselves or whether we should stop and wait for the enemy on our side of the Belgian border.
That was a question of diplomacy rather than of a military kind but there is no doubt that any commander of troops who, in times of war learns that the enemy has the intention of occupying a location, the position of which gives him tactical advantage has the imperative duty to try to occupy that point first himself, and as soon as ever he can.
If any of us had said that out of respect for the treaty of 1839 he would, on his own initiative have remained on our side of the Belgian border, thus bringing the war on to French territory, he would have been scorned by his comrades and by the Minister of War himself."
General Alexandre Percin in 'Ere Nouvelle' (New Era) in 1925.
This man at times speaks in a loud, harsh staccatto á la John Cleese; check out his speech a few seconds before the 57 minute mark. He shouts so much and in such a violent stop-go, staggering manner that he is evidently exhausted by the end of his lecture.
I'm not quite sure I enjoyed this. Dr. McMeekin seems to get lost in a mire of minutiae and to love his extravagant mode of delivery, but in my opinion all the painstakingly exposed random details do not prove that war was evitable, but that perhaps the particular event of Franz Ferdinand's death might not have unleashed it. So what? The huge tensions amongst European countries and colossal arms buildup, and especially the deep social unrest among the European working class (which was coming to the verge of almost symultaneous insurrection in all countries) would have brought about war any old way.
In my opinion war was deeply wished for among the European well-to-do and the powers-that-be. The elites needed a huge war to deflect the working class movement which was gaining strength in the whole continent. I think Jean Jaures' assassination was more conducive to war than Franz Ferdinand's.
I am not convinced by your argument that this war was a diversion for burgeoning unrest among the lower classes. First of Jaurez was killed at the end of July, and deliberations had been going on in war rooms for that entire month about whether France would support an action by Russia to attack Austria, and whether Serbia should comply with the ultimatum. Also many of the main leaders at the beginning of this crisis were on vacation suggesting that it was not a pre-planned war for political reasons but instead a series of bluffs and counterbluffs that escalated too far. Also, why would Russia, whose Foreign Minister Sazanov pushed the Serbs into rejecting the ultimatum and got French reassurances that the alliance would be upheld in a war with Austria, want to conjure up a war as a means of preventing socialist revolution when it was war that caused the revolution of 1905? Overall, the war really was not inevitable but the culmination of many reconfigured alliances that happened in the previous ten years, like during the Morocco crisis which brought France and England together, during 1913 which saw the Russians drop the Bulgarians for the Serbs and the Turks re-ally with Germany. These alliance blocs were not inviolable but in fact a day to day reaction to events on the ground. Nothing inevitable and clearly not a way to stop a coming revolution.
I agree that his delivery style leaves much to be desired (his vocabulary can be at times very pedantic), but to your second point: the war devastated the well-to-do in all the belligerent countries and brought down four empires. Nobody, except maybe some among the Austro-Hungarian and German leadership, truly wanted war.
Yes, I had similar thoughts. His diction hurts my ears, and some of the detail, whilst an interesting narrative, seems rather trivial and pithy
@@samuel_vodopia1522 there was a lot of civil unrest in Britain in the run up to the war and without it there might well have been an uprising and possible revolt.
@@hyethga rich people always make money out of war
In the first 48 years after Waterloo, (1815) we find the British involved in six foreign wars, one
Colonial conquest, and the suppression of one major mutiny; France involved in four foreign
wars, and two Colonial conquests: Russia involved in five foreign wars, without mentioning
her eastern expansion in Asia and the suppression of revolts in Poland (1830 and 1863) and
elsewhere and Austria involved in two foreign wars, and the suppression of various revolts
among the heterogeneous populations forming the Austrian Empire.
Now, what about the brutal militaristic Prussians, the very ones that Lord Vansittart
said of in his pamphlet, "if you give them another chance, they will give you another war"? There
were plenty of chances to start wars during these particular years so...
Well, the answer is... NONE, NONE AT ALL, Prussia was the only important State of
Europe that remained at peace with her neighbors during this long span of years, a near
half-century of exemplary behavior that no one else, including Britain, could show.
Uhm, what about the Brothers War ( austria vs prussia ) in 1866? Or her two wars against Denmark ? Or her conquests in German Africa ? And of course the Franco Prussian war ??
I see your point but you are not doing a good job providing actual facts. You are undermining our entire sides assertion that Prussia - and later Germany - was less hawkish than the Entente. Or any major power during the Long 19th century, actually.
Prussia helped crush the 1848 Hungarian revolt, fought the Danes twice, then Austria, then France
Good stuff, but if you read a book written in 1915 (If you had a copy in Imperial Germany, it was a capital offense) named "I Accuse, which was written by an unnamed German in the diplomatic corps, his thesis was that Germany, Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary WANTED the war, they would lose it and would be hated for a generation. He has copies of all the diplomatic records. Germany talked about "Der Tag"
How can anyone lecture like this for an hour without notes? Brilliant! The British historians are all desperate to blame the Germans. I would not even have them in a podium finish. Serbia the gold medal, Austria the silver, Russia the bronze. After all, the Russians mobilised before the Germans. Fact. And I think Europe's Last Summer the most wholistic analysis. Traces causes back to the split of the Roman Empire.
I just read the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to the Serbian government. It actually is quite reasonable, given the fact that the Serbian military had in fact trained and equipped a team of assassins to murder the future head of the Austro-Hungarian state.
The ultimatum is absolutely not reasonable. It was literally drafted to be rejected
If it is reasonable it might be good to find a country example where signing demand No. 5 worked out fine. Where that country didn't get "canceled" or turned into a colony soon after.
Marmocet Serbia actually accepted all of the demands in the ultimatum. It was the last one that said that they should let Austrian police go into Serbia and let them carry out the judicial processes that went to far for Serbia.
Additionally Austria Hungary always wanted to eliminate Serbia they just needed an excuse, they designed the ultimatum specifically to be rejected.
Yes it was reasonable, any big power would in comparable situation send it or even more severe
The NATO ultimatum to Serbia in 1999 was ways more severe
France's role in using the Balkan tnsions with the Sarajevo incident as a tripwire for a European conflagration is really bad ... See Christopher Clark - ruclips.net/video/dx_V4NAUuW8/видео.html
sazonov... the master manipulator of WW1, his eyes on the Bosporus and the spoils of the Ottoman Empire
Russians being expansive yes.
He should learn more about the Ultimatum and the response. Most of the countries Worldwide said reason for war is gone.
He knows far more than you, suggest YOU read on the matter from decent books and not crappy ones.
I 2nd the idiot cameraman motion.
Thank you for using the proper term “Islamic terrorism!”
You say he did not want to answer his phone, therefore declared war on Serbia. Your thesis should have been how Europeans did not consider US relevant to Europe, a business as usual catastrophe for Europe, not understanding where war might leas, to the very phone call from Uncle Sam saying go on, pick up that phone, talk to your fellow European, think it through, you dont really want catastrophe do you?
In his biography, the former US diplomat Henry White recalls a conversation between himself and the leader of the Conservative Party of England and Prime Minister Lord Balfour while he was living in London in 1910.
-BALFOUR: We are probably foolish that we can find no reason to declare war on Germany before it
builds too many ships and takes away our trade.
-WHITE: You are a generous man in private life. how can you consider something politically as
immoral as a war against a nation that has the right to maintain a fleet? If you want to keep up with
German trade why don't you work harder?
-BALFOUR: That would mean we would have to lower our standard of living, maybe a war would be
easier for us.
-WHITE: I am shocked that you have come to this conclusion on questions of principle.
-BALFOUR: It is not a question of right or wrong, it is a question of maintaining our supremacy.
24 MGFA, Marine, page 267
25 MGFA, Marine, page 268
Balfour had not held any position of authority from 1906. Add to that Balfour wasn't the leader of the Conservative Party in England. He was the Leader of the Conservative & Unionist Party in Britain.
Yes agreed the Germans had as much right as the British to have a naval fleet. What got god-given right did the Poms have to have the biggest navy?
The expulsion of turks from balkans were extremely bloody affair which paved way for Armenian genocide. Most turks and kurds were fearful that similar process would happen in eastern turkey occupied by russians and armenians if they did not react. people overlook this fact a nation was traumatised like germans after versailles.
I watched and read about WW1 a lot, and in the end Austro Hungary (Germany) just wanted a reason for attack on Serbia. Serbia had two wars in 1912 and 1913 and was egsosted. They didn't need another war with the great power. So, it is possible that Princip was supported from Germany, Austro Hungary or maybe some other great power just to justify a reason for war. Also Franc Joseph didn't like Ferdinand, and it is another reason for his death
Think about that
LOL, this man substitutes credibility with tone and eye rolls. This is the guy who literally blamed Stalin for WWII, his reasoning reducing to "Stalin wanted the western powers to go to war, and he allied with Hitler to keep himself safe"....yes, and Hitler's actions had nothing to do with it apparently, facepalm
There are intelligent interpretations of both of these events. He cannot provide them.
"The War of 1914: An Avoidable Catastrophe " No sense in complaining now. Just be happy we won.
WW1 could not be avoided because it was about oil.
Bull shit.
@@jezalb2710 He is right. It was the Berlin-Baghdad railway that caused the war.