If You Are In Favor of the Kaiser Keep it to Yourself - Michael Neiberg
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 ноя 2014
- Michael Neiberg is a Professor of History in the Department of National Security and Strategy at the United States Army War College in Carlisle, Pa.
Dr. Neiberg discusses the reactions of everyday Americans to the outbreak of World War I. He argues that such a "bottom up" approach provides a better understanding of what American views were and how they changed than the traditional "top down" view that American attitudes reflected those of President Woodrow Wilson.
Presented November 8, 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
Outstanding lecture, thank you. One small point - the Austro-Hungarians were not the only power to appoint Jews generals - General Sir Arthur Monash commanded the Australian Corps and he was Jewish. I agree though he was an exception but while there was an anti-semitic strain in British culture it was nothing compared with that in Eastern Europe.
Correction. He was Sir John Monash, not Arthur. Like almost the entire Australian army, not a professional soldier, but an engineer. Many military historians consider him the most creative general of the war. Some say that had he not been an amateur, a 'colonial' and a Jew, he might have replaced Haig.
He developed the combined arms attack of tanks, artillery, infantry and aircraft for the Battle of Hamel on July 4 1918, the date in honour of the Americans under his command. The same tactics were used in the larger Battle of Amiens on August 8, Ludenforff's "black day for the German Army". The lesson was not lost on the Germans who developed it as the Blitzkrieg.
After the war he built the electricity generation system in the state of Victoria. Monash university in Melbourne is named after him, and he appears on the Australian $100 note.
The Jewish population of the UK is tiny, today around 300,000 people in a population of 60+ million. In 1914 it was about 280,000 in a population of 42 million so the chances of numerous high ranking military officers coming from that proportion of the population was remote statistically.
@@pshehan1 I suspect Yper Man conflated the name of John Monash with Sir Arthur Currie eventual commander of the Canadian Corps who utilized meticulous planning and rehearsal, aerial reconnaissance, effective counter battery fire and an effective rolling barrage to successfully capture Vimy Ridge in April of 1917. Currie was also rumoured to replace Haig in 1919 had the war continued.
He was speaking of the European countries where most Jews lived, and from where most Jewish-Americans had emigrated.
Dr. Neiberg is probably the most interesting and innovative WWI scholars I have heard. Brings forward original and well researched positions and presents them with energy and passion.
Margaret MacMillan is fascinating.
That was a great presentation
These lectures are excellent. I have a much better understanding of World War 1 and appreciation for how it shaped our modern world.
Outstanding historian. I agree WWI never seemed an interesting story until watching this channel. Now it's fascinating.
32:12 On the live magazine cover, Bismarck North Dakota is still Bismarck. Imagine that King of Prussia, PA didn't get a name change either.
When the speaker mentioned the three versions of “Over There” that became popular, he mentioned Cohan’s, then an Irish-American’s, as though Cohan himself wasn’t Irish-American. Does he think Cohan was Jewish? Also surprised at his lack of ability to pronounce “Reims” and “Goethe” properly. Surprising for a scholar. Would also have preferred a differentiation between the Jewish Pale of Settlement (Russian) vs. Galicia (Austro-Hungarian). The eastern front swept across Galicia repeatedly, the Carpathian Mts. being in Austro-Hungarian territory. Overall, very interesting presentation.
is goethe pro'd "geart(h)a" or "girtah"? heard it both ways
Submarines outside Chatham Ma. USA......
...........
This is what one yrs old speech...
Any....update on information about German submarine offshore?
..........
And the name of the book.....?
..........
New information is being made available for those whom can bring
in new perspectives of Ww1.....
Research is not for the lazy.....
A great discussion.....thanks
5:00 pm, “there was nothing wrong with Germany”....cough cough...treaty of Versailles...cough cough!
The United States was, explicitly, not an ally of UK, France and Japan. It was an associated power. Further, Japan and UK were allies. This did not make Japan a US ally.
Thats a fascinating observation. Do you have some historical citation for that claim? Admittedly there was no formal treaty such as the Entente Cordiale but recall also that Britain was not party to the Franco-Russian treaty that dragged France into the war in 1914. It is well understood that the American Expeditionary Forces initially refused integration into the Allied forces as Foche wanted. But Pershing --at the insistence of President Wilson via the somewhat slippery Col House--did finally agree to integrate American divisions, the Rainbow Division most memorably, into Allied control. And then in 1918 the AEF did submit to the command of Marshall Foche. Respectfully I do think the US was an ally
@@alanjohnson5847I think in a military sense yes, but politically the United States and Britain had pretty significant differences in regards to WW1. You can see this at the treaty of Versailles and the different outlooks between the two countries; the US never ratifies the treaty and ends up signing its own peace deals
You are right The US was not an ally of Japan. They knew that Japan had an eye to US power in the Pacific
I'm for the Kaiser.
The attitude of Mary Roberts Rinehart at 6:00 demonstrates the success of the British propaganda efforts. The Timeline documentary on the subject of British espionage in WWI documents their ultimately successful efforts, which have shaded the history of WWI to this day. I find the "Proposed Map of Europe" curious in that Germany and Austria are removed from the map, while the countries which ultimately were to blame for the start of the war (Serbia and Russia) were given expanded territory.
In fact it's curious that if the US was tilting towards a war again Imperialism, why they sided with Russia, Belgium, France and England -- all of whom who had extensive colonial empires in Asia and Africa.
How was Russia to blame for the start off the war???
Serbian terror in Bosnia sure buit that was responded by Austria with a declaration of war ("give us free hands before Date x or we are at war".
Only AFTER Austria had asked for and gotten Germanys cate blanch to go ahaed and Russia will not intervene and if tbey do we handle them...
Serbia did offer to try meet the ultmatum (but it was an impossible demand). Russia only vbacked her ally up against a threat of invasion.
@@PMMagroChristopher Clark and Sean Meekins have demonstrated quite clearly how Russia played a pivotal role in the start of WW1. The Russians had been humiliated by Japan in the Manchurian War, this led to a wounded 'nationalism' to take hold ( and the horrible pogroms Neiberg makes mention in this lecture). A Pan-slavic racial pride takes hold: 'the Slavs will not be humiliated any more' etc. Russia starts pushing Serbian interests in the Balkans. This emboldened Serbia to take a more aggressive stance in the Balkans ( two previous Balkan wars) and then with Austria through many terrorist attacks. You note the Serbs were willing to accept the ultimatum issued by Austria. The Russians interceded and pushed the Serbs to reject the ultimatum with full certainty that Russia would come to the side of 'her little Slavic brothers'. Russia would also bring France (and Britain) into the War on Serbia's side. The carte Blanche offered Serbia by Russia (and France) predates the one offered by the Germans by many years. France were heavily arming Serbia with munitions sales. The French were also bankrolling railway development along the Russian-German border for the quick deployment of the massive Russian infantry which was seen as the key to victory in the anticipated World War. Last but not least both historians have noted the Russians, French (and Serbs) destroyed many of their documents from the period and many that survived were 'doctored' after the outbreak of war: they deliberately revised dates/decisions to try and paint themselves as 'reactionary' to events but the original documents surfaced proving their duplicity. This activity alone would seem to be a huge red-flag
41:58 The problem, of course, for Munsterberg and Germany is that you don't keep the Russian slavic/mongol hordes as far *east* as possible by invading *the west.*
Call when 5 min out. Thanks
Did you.. mean to comment that.. here? Or did you think you were sending a text?
Germany actually did have a plan to invade Manhattan early on but it was shelved.
The Germans realized that they faced a near impossible task. They would face a gun behind every blade of grass to quote Yamamoto. The second admendment made them rethink that idea.
@@patrickbrennan1317
Also the British Navy, and the problem the Germans had with production.
For some reason a few years before the war, Wilhelm II asked the general staff for plans to invade and occupy Boston, Washington, and New York City. They returned to him an outrageous estimate of soldiers and ships to occupy either of Boston or Washington while only saying that New York City would likely require a substantially larger force. He got the idea that he had asked a profoundly stupid question, and the issue was dropped.
Operational Plan 3. It was insanely impossible.
One of the strangest things.
Germany was a democracy prior to 1914, universal suffrage or 1 man 1 vote was in place in the early 1880’s. Much sooner than Britain. Bismarck had introduced a liberal social welfare system far more liberal than the British even in 1914.
But the Kaiser had way more powers than The King.
The Social Democratic majority Reichstag voted in favour of going to war believing it was a defensive war.
The Germans attacked Belgium. To defend the German people from the Russians.
Liberal social welfare system? No such thing.
And yes, he introduced social insurance scheme. To spite socialists.
The Germans not only invaded neutral Belgium, they also invaded Luxembourg and declared war first against Russia and France.
In Germany it was only 1 man 1 vote for the reichstag elections. This was not the case for Landtag of Prussia. The Chancellor of Germany also had to be the Minister President of Prussia.
shoot... always thought caruso was Iti.
Goethe pronounced "Goath-eh" and Bismarck, SOUTH Dakota. Hmmmmm.
To the rather smug gentleman at 37:35, Germany did not have one plan to invade the United States. Actually it had 3 plans to do so. Known conveniently as Operational Plan I, Operational Plan II and Operational Plan III, all of these described different objectives and points of entry for an invasion force that would attack the US and place large ground forces on American soil. Of them all Operational Plan III was the largest in scope. It envisioned separate naval attacks on Boston and New York City followed by an invasion force of over 100,000 troops. It is true that senior Imperial Army and Navy officers were convinced that the plans would all end in catastrophic defeat. Von Schlieffen especially felt that 100,000 troops might, with a lot of luck, capture Boston but the taking of New York City would require many hundreds of thousands more. On the other hand Admiral Tirpitz reported to the Kaiser that the Kriegsmarine was stronger than the US Navy so, as long as the ground forces issue could be worked out, the Imperial Navy could successfully prosecute its part of the plan. In the end, what Germany really lacked was the ability to transport enough ground forces to achieve a forced entry assault on North America. And remember too that the Kaiser hated America. He despised authentic republicanism and he hated capitalism even more. These were defining characteristics of the US. Bear in mind too, though our smug friend didnt mention it, the Kaiser very seriously considered seizing the Panama Canal as soon as Theodore Roosevelt and the US completed it. That Germany didnt pursue this is probably only because the empire became embroiled in a pair of international disputes over Morocco that almost led to war ten years before the Great War began. As for Japan, even AP History students in High School know that US-Japanese relations from 1900 on through the Great War and into the 20's was marked by increasing tensions over what the US perceived as Japan's attempt to dominate the Pacific. Add to that the ongoing prejudice against Japanese immigrants to California and one can easily imagine that someone might suspect Japan of harboring designs on the American West coast. Just read the US Alien Land Act of 1913 and that part of the map becomes easily understandable. Dont ridicule someone who lived then and understood the American zeitgeist of the time until you've done a little research yourself!
Number 27? Sounds ominous! Fortunately you didn’t join The 27 Club!
If Balfour had been German, allegiances would have remained as they were, 40% of Americans had German blood, Tomas Hertl and the Kaiser were personal friends, Germany welcomed the Russians who were fleeing the Czar's violence, the Germans rightfully felt betrayed when they found out about the Balfour declaration.
if you are in favour of Merkel, keep it to yourself 😂😂😂😅
This is a very thoughtful lecture; an excellent rebuttal to those who tend to want to give Germany a pass for WWI.
It's major focus is on the American attitudes toward Germany in the war, and the reasons why, but the attitudes were well-informed and are useful in argument against present-day defenders of German aggression pre-Hitler.
You find a summation of war propaganda and popular attitudes worryingly persuasive for someone who can spell.
Can see where he get's his opinions. Balderdash.
From where? And what, specifically, are you objecting to?
A masterclass in awful lectures. Avoiding the real question that Gore Vidal tackled head on: I’ve often thought, had we stayed out, Germany might have dominated the European continent for a generation or so, and no one would have been the sadder. The Kaiser was not Hitler. In fact, one suspects that a mildly victorious Germany in 1917 could never have produced a vengeful Fuhrer fifteen years later.
See Brest-Litovsk
History as it was, not how it could have been. Hindsight is 20/20 or something.
Disagreeing with a thesis does not make a lecture awful.
There is a reason millitary scholars broadly think the US involvement in WW1 against the Central Powers was inevitable.
Hitler was not purely a creation of Versailles.
The is heavy propaganda surrounding both worlds wars. People who demonise Germany are historical illiterates incapable of critical thinking and victim of very polarised views.
Neiberg is really good, we disagree