How did Germany plan to "conquer the World" in WW1?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 июн 2024
- How did Germany plan to "conquer the World" in World War 1?
"Imperial Germany was an ambitious empire. The Germans just united in the second half of the 19th Century and gained vast respect from the rest of the continent, and the world, as a scientific and industrial superpower; racking up 20 Nobel Prizes between 1901 through 1918 alone, spanning the categories of Medicine, Chemistry, Physics, and Literature. The year before the outbreak of World War One, Imperial Germany also boasted the largest economy in Continental Europe and placed only third behind the United States and the British Empire on the world scale. With a robust military and rapidly prospering home status, the German Empire was ready for even more success and power, and that is exactly what they would aim to take…"
♦Consider to Support the Channel of Patreon and gain cool stuff:
/ knowledgia
♦Please consider to SUBSCRIBE : goo.gl/YJNqek
♦Music, courtesy of EpidemicSound
♦Sources :
The First World War by Hutchinson - amzn.to/3fHjmIK
Schlieffen Plan: Critique of a Myth by Wolff, 1958 - amzn.to/3wtFUT9
The First World War: Volume I: To Arms First World War by Oxford University Press - amzn.to/3t20Oa9
Alfred Von Schlieffen's Military Writings by Routledge-amzn.to/3mkydde
Europe's Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914? by Vintage - amzn.to/3sRQIIB
A History of the World in the Twentieth Century, Enlarged Edition by Belknap Press -amzn.to/3fETzRq
The Plan That Broke the World: The "Schlieffen Plan" and World War I What Were They Thinking? by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform -amzn.to/2PW3as8
♦Script & Research :
Skylar Gordon
#History #Documentary
The enormous British and French Empires claiming that Germany was trying to take over the world is hilarious
Well they did own most of the world
@@SteveSmith-ty8ko who? Germany?
@@theAEDan Britisg and French.....
Not to mention America, we may not have a classical empire, but the hegemonic power of the US, though waning, is possibly the greatest power any one nation has ever held.
Germany was a peaceful power that time, especially related to Great Britain and France.
The winners wrote the history. And they wrote it in her sence
britain and france - invade most of the world
germany - invades belgium
britain and france - '' wait that's illegal ''
welp, that's what diplomacy is for
F off
@@user-cq5sn5hq4m i'm sorry but it's the truth
@@user-cq5sn5hq4m its accurate
underrated comment
Britain in 1914: Germany has no right to subjugate other nations and dominate their neighbors!
India and Ireland: wait ... what?
No no no, Britain is allowed but no one else!!! Cause uhhhhh we said so
Heck Belgium was a British puppet state created by a triggered revolution to separate the industiral base of Walloonia from the Dutch colonial empire.
@@DaDunge - This is NOT the right time OR the place to be saying
ANYTHING approaching a sensible criticim OR observation!! ... MATE!! LoL
India did eventually get it's independence though... so win/win?
@@Onionbagel
With loot of 45tillion usd worth resources
How did Germany plan on conquering the world in ww1?
It didn’t.
It didn't.
@emaneux m e t h
Exactly! The Kaiser and his politicians did not plan on conquering the world!
@emaneux They didn't have to. The Allied powers already took over the world. Look at the British Empire on its own at the time.
@emaneux you really think the country that had 80 million ppl and pioneered submarine tech and warfare.. tank tech and warfare. airplane tech and warfare.. medicine and pharmaceuticals. and the US only got the nuclear tech because they took German Physicists. Germany wouldve had the nuke in 1945 or early 1946. then the best case scenario for the allies would be a peace deal.
Germany: When you lose two world wars so you can finally beat the British economy
Strategi
Third times the charm
Tbf they are much larger and hold land borders with many other countries allowing for easy trade
I think the British economy was no match for Germany even before 1914. But the British had the economic resources of their many colonies and the safer maritime trade lines. When after two world wars the British were too weakened to keep the Empire under their thumb what remained on the British isles collapsed. Today one third of what remains of the British GDP is "created" on one square mile called the "City of London", and not by being productive in any true sense of the meaning.
@@maximkretsch7134 thats true, Britain itself actually had a massive economic collapse because of its huge empires, we literally outcompeted ourselves, we built our colonies to a point where their industries pushed ours out of business, a huge mistake by us.
Spoiler: Germany didn’t, in fact, plot to conquer the world.
Too few people know this fact though :(
Yes in either world war
ive noticed more than once that this channel spreads low quality information and weird takes on history
it seems to me like the owner of the channel only has a very very superficial knowledge or interest in history but know how to present himself professionally with a narrator and animations
He's being hyperbolic, not literal.
@@coolbreeze2.0-mortemadfasc13 Most people just read headlines, skim comments, and breeze through videos. Doesn't matter if he pretends to be hyperbolic or not and doesn't excuse him if it be the case, either.
Unpopular opinion: Germany did not try to take over the world in World War One.
Most of the times the idea of "taking over the world" is mentioned it's usually a metaphor.
They knew that they were kinda weak to go war after war. That it would probably end up like Napoleonic wars, everybody wants revenge. I wonder how it would happen.
Yeah even though Germany wanted a global empire they did not wish to control the whole world
German tries to defend themselves from Angelic bully
i really doubt that the claim that germany attempted to take over world in WW2 was real either.
BUT COMMUNISM, oh boy, they clearly did tried to take over the whole world
Thats fairly simplistic version, which puts paints Germany as the aggressor and sole cause of the war. France desperately wanted revenge for defeat in the Franco Prussian War and Alsace-Lorraine provinces back. There was an arms build up by all sides and militarism. Not mention the alliances of the Central Powers and the Triple Entente
Thats a fact. England and France feared a united Germany, so much that they became allies after centuries of hatred and war between theme. They were used to their position of power in Europe, and they know a united Germany will be a huge menace for it.
@@luispereira2735 They only did this because Germany was routinely provoking a series of crisis’ on the world stage. First and Second Morocco, Naval arms race etc.
It wasn’t even really an alliance, only made as such by the German invasion of Belgium. If Germany hadn’t started the war neither Britain or France would have
It's all on purpose. Our whole modern civilisation is build on lies about those two world wars. Wake up.
@@harrym7544 Serbia and Austria started the war and the uk fears the growing navel power of the Germans, And France already joined the war before Belgium did my guy.
@@bigbob5597 I said the Entente only became an alliance in the military sense after Germany invaded Belgium, as it provoked British entry. Before the German invasion of Belgium the Cabinet would have collapsed over intervention.
Serbia did not start the war, and other than abdicate their sovereignty there was little else the country could have done to avoid it. Austria does bear some responsibility, but they wouldn’t have acted without German approval, indeed Berlin egged the Austrians on.
Germany's pre-1918-borders were so badass
They were perfect
No one said it’s impossible to regain this form.
@Right-Wing Persian nah
@Right-Wing Persian nah
I mean Berlin was in the centre , that's perfection
Belgium, the real speedbump.
It is why it exists
Belgium can never be touched we Brits love them due to our historical ties particularly with flanders.
@@kingstarscream320 Curious fact. It was created after the Napolionic wars to prevent French expansion and future invasion of the German States... than it ended up doing the opposite.
@@luispereira2735 After Napoleon, the Netherlands owned all of the Lowlands. Then the catholics rebelled
If you live here you know you can take this literally.
Britain, to Germany: "Hey, you shouldn't just go invading your neighbours like that, that's kind of fucked up."
Ireland: "..."
5:36 "The Germans wished to create a German Economic Association" And years later they did, its now called the EU lol
You don't know what you're talking about. Please look how the EU actually works and how much power Germany actually has in this union and then have an opinion on that, with actually knowing something about this.
@@dnocturn84 Actually he is not completely wrong. Germany has the biggest Economy in Europe, it exports alot of goods like cars, and weapons. Globally the economy is in the top 10 and 4 place at exporting weapons behind the USA, Russia and China
@@matteoaievola8643 Yes, look at Germanys size and especially it's population size and you can see where this originates from. It also is a country of early industralisation and heavy on the innovation scale. Germanys economical power was always a reason for it's "claim" to be a "dominant" nation in Europe. And sure, Germany does profit a lot from the EU. But I have to disagree that Germany is the "mastermind" behind the EU, nor that it is actually dominating the whole show. This impression is an illusion. The EU is designed to not be dominated by a single nation. On the level of nation leaders (effecting the European Council, the Council of Europe and the European Commission), every nation has the same weight, as the other ones. Size does not matter. Little Luxembourg has the same power as Germany or France does. On the level of the European Parliament, population size does matter, but it's political parties, joined across borders, that follow their agenda and ideology, not neccessarly national interests only. And even there Germany only has ca. 18% of political weight. It's pretty easy to create a countering majority that "beats" German interests there. It's basically all down to Germanys powerful economy, that is heavily linked to other European nations, that has some kind of an dominant impact on the EU as a whole. But Germanys economy doesn't reflect Germanys national interests at all, nor is it powerful enough to somehow "seize" control.
Changing it's predecessor union into the EU and supporting a more federal, more political and more cooperational union was even forced on Germany by France, as an requirement to allow Germanys reunifiction to happen. To be fair, Germany was already a beneficary of the union at this point and wasn't against this idea at all.
@@dnocturn84 you misunderstood me, I never said that Germany is the big boss in the EU, only it has the biggest Economy in Europe
well germany not the leader of the eu and greece 2600 years ago did the name europa
OMG!!Germans planned to conquer the world by biting the globe (thumbnail)
Well im going to conquer the world as germany on HOI4 🤣🤣🤣
@@Black-Fish I’m doing it on ck3
Of course he’s eating the world. It’s full of fibre.
Haha🤣🤣
Germany want a piece of that globe-
While German is still "Planning", The British and French already 60% to completion yet no one ever complain about them
You cant have spent a lot of time in Britain then. The youth of the UK are absolutely ravenous in making everyone aware how dreadful the British empire and Britain was. Heck, half our country wants to tear down anything to do with our history to the very end of making a point.
Our own members of Parliament talk about it all the time as well. Was in the news here just this week.
@@anabolicchicken5972 Really? That's great news indeed! I wish one day UK make up for its past mistakes.
@@anabolicchicken5972 I dont think you get it, the same happens in all white nations to demonize whites, theyre not doing it to demonize Britain for being mean to Germany, if anything they still encourage that.
Hatred for ww1 Germany is mixed, but its still there, I think about everyone either dislikes them or likes them it depends honestly, im mixed about Germany.
@@aeida6140 they are getting demonise because of the evil deed done by their ancestors. It's karma.
@@sololife9260 No, they're getting demonized because people like you are evil and want to satisfy your own group, it isn't karma, karma is when us from the west come back and villainize your people
I like how Britain and France said Germany planned to conquer the world while they owned most of the world
The main reason Germany went through Belgium is because the English did not say for certain that they would have remained neutral if Germany agreed to not attack Belgium. So, the English basically said that even if Germany agreed to not attack Belgium, the English might still end up attacking Germany anyway, since they didn't agree to remain neutral in such a case.
Yes, but don't forget the German arrogance too, saying that if the BEF landed in France, they would send the military police to arrest them.
@@Melnek1 That was a joke from Otto von Bismarck and predates the actual events by quite a bit. It was a hint at the rather small number of British professional soldiers compared to the huge standing armies of continental Europe.
So from your point of view the London Treaty (1839) is not real right?
@@condedooku9750 I think he's saying it was irrelevant. Even if Germany had regarded it, the UK would still have attacked Germany.
@@maasro The problem is that there is nothing to tell us this, if the UK had wanted war with Germany they would have attacked them as soon as Germany declared war on Russia or France, but it was only due to the invasion of Belgium that convinced the UK to fight .
You know I find it really interesting how Germany was really close to winning WW1 maybe even closer than in WW2
Yes, they were in fact closer to winning WW1 than WW2. The reason being that they could not win WW2.
WW2 was done for Germany after they crossed the polish border
Really it's Germany's culture that killed it. No diplomacy, Only battle. They could have not gotten the British and Americans in the war but they thought those two countries were afraid of them
Stabbed in the back
@@juanmarquez9729 Italy was mainly just gonna be a distraction. They signed a non agression pact with france
"It relied on perfect and unrealistic execution in order to succeed." Funny how this statement could also be applied amazingly well to Operation Barbarossa...
Well, pretty much everyone underestimated the Soviets in that time. The germans didnt know at how rapidly the russian military industrial complex could shit out guns, tanks and airplanes.
Hitler himself says at a recording with Mannerheim (the Finnish military supreme commander) that he would think you are crazy if a country can ever get 25 thousand tanks and more.
Yet even with all this, barbarossa still partially succeeded and they were able to get to the gates of moskau.
@@dimmler7851 It's not so much underestimating the USSR. It's insanely overestimating the Nazi logistical system which was already barely adequate for supporting the invasion of France which had better roads, the same rail system and was a much smaller country. Having worked in military logistics for six years and also being a military historian working on a PHD, it's...excruciating to think that even if the Soviet government did collapse more or less as Hitler expected, his own logistical system would have still prevented full victory by the schedule he had set. Operation Barbarossa was based off of insanely unrealistic and optimistic concepts that jump the border into delusional, because in a military operation nothing every goes perfectly, there's always unexpected delays, problems and setbacks. The German planning simply chose to ignore that entirely in their initial estimates.
It was a good plan however the Brits held the French left flank.
@@jasonjason6525 Not really as performing it at all would bring the British Empire into the war against Germany, which would(and did) fatally damage imports and put pressure on Germany to attempt to defeat Britain at sea which would also inevitably lead to confrontations with neutral ships in said conflict, alienating many and pushing others(eventually the United States) into the war against Germany. Between Germany, Austria Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, Russia was unlikely to be successful and France lacked the manpower alone to defeat Germany on the Western front. the plan was unrealistic in its optimistic estimates of success and did not account for anything going less well than perfectly, which is divorced from reality when a single bridge point or road being blocked or a convoy getting lost can derail an army's movements significantly at times.
@@grandadmiralzaarin4962 Have you not understood my comment above? I said it would have worked had Britain stayed Neutral. You do realize the French left flank was guarded by the Brits, and British Navy blockade was the most important factor in winning the war. The French were basically floating on British and American Finance and Food. The German plan was a reasonably good plan that involved France and Russia, but they didn’t factor Britain and that’s why they lost.
Germany here: Haven't watched the video yet but I will now. My answer to this question is: There had never been a plan to conquer the world. 😉
exactly its sad how much everyone hate on them when in fact it was really austria hungary
1939 tho
@@xavierblitz5647 The video is about WW-I... and even in WW-II there had been no plan to conquer the world.
@@knutritter461 only Out of desperation and they Had the Bomb ...
@@GoetzimRegen No, they did not have the bomb... and they were far away from it.
“Dragged France into the war”
I knew this video was gonna be a load of shit
anti german history is strong these days ...
@@herbertgoldstein1156 always has been
For NO apparent reason whatsoever
What's your problem with that statement? Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia only because of the full support of Germany, France was allied with Russia, France started mobilizing, Germany declared war to France. Which makes his statement factually right, the other fact being that France would have declared war on its own otherwise does not change that
Let's all sympathise with Germany because we're edgy revisionists
The British Empire was more likely to conquer the world since they already owned 25% of the world’s landmass with their 1000 years history of war all across the world. This video is not very accurate because knowledgia admits that Germany abandoned their plan in fighting the U.S. meaning no domination over North America. There is also no real evidence that Germany wanted to conquer the world. Knowledgia stated, “Though there was no immediate or clear plan for world domination”, admitting that Germany had no plan of doing so. The title of this video should be, “My imaginary idea of how Germany should conquer the world”.
If Britain can't beat Germany without all of its empire deciding to leave, how is Britain going to conquer the world? Also there's more than a thousand years of warfare by Britain, its just pre crusades it was almost entirely defensive in nature.
@محمد شندي are you unable to read? "Pre crusades" meaning before the crusades, meaning by extension, before the British empire was ever so much as a thought on someone's brain.
That sounded genius but they depended on the enemies to be very weak
some of them actually were, but German allies were weaker
This was Germany's main problem during both world war. Germany itself was one of the biggest powerhouses in Europe, if not THE biggest one, but its allies were very weak.
@@OGmaximilian plus their enemies were not as weak as they thought. Its almost like they were delusional or something, people act like if the germans had a better leadership the outcome would've been different, but in reality they were extremely under supplied and untrained. WW2 was a lost cause for Germany and we have to admit that.
@@smh1245 In the case of WW 2 I agree. Germany had no time to build up a great army. But things are different in WW1
@m n that's true. But war in all four directios is vey difficult. In the east Russia, in the west France + Britain and later + USA, in the south Italy and in the nort Britain and the sea blockade, which was very important
Why does the title say “conquer the world”? You mean win the war? Because world war has like nothing to do with world domination
it’s in quotations, basically mocking British and French propaganda saying that Germany’s goal was to rule the world in WWI
@@hornet370 yeah they wouldn't have been able to keep it long even if it was their goal due to how much it would cost.
Of course a world war has something to do with world domination. Take a look at Hitlers plans in ww2.
@@abraham2172 Dude this is about WW1, not about an angry Austrian painter causing another world war.
@@Atajew Dude this is about the question if a world war has something to do with world domination. And it does, as the example of ww2 demonstrates.
Me a hoi4 player: *goes back to time and helps kaiser learn both ww2 tech tree and accual blitzkrieg*
r u - Oh yeah, me too!! Tiger's and Panther's in ww1? "GAME OVER"!! And NO Genocide
as well ... A great plan, but first, how do you get an ego maniac like "Der Kiaser", to
LISTEN TO YOU!! Much less, beleive you are from the "future"? He may just have us
"shot as Spy's", a more likely scinario than him making us "honoured guests, and
advisors". I know if I were the Kiaser, more than likely, I would have had you or I shot
as "Spy's" too!! One must err on the side of caution, yes?
@@karlmuller3690 kaiser is an ego-maniac, you are just dumb, honestly, how is he an ego maniac, please let me know
"One fine day when Kaiser Bill was feeling kind of breezy,/He said I think I'll lick the world, I'm sure it will be easy."
Sang it in yankee doodle tune
@@derry9584 Yes, it was sung to that.
Germany: Wants to conquer the world Napoleon-style!
Machine-Gun: Sorry, dude, you will have to spend four years in North-Eastern France!
It was more like trenches. Germany actually was a pioneer when it came to machine guns and it's use doctrines.
Clearly they didn’t get the memo. Bullets hurt.
No, it was the other way around. The French suffered HUGE casualties in the beginning because of german machine guns
@@eff_gee321 the machine gun was one of the main factors that made trench warfare so deadly
@@benjamingumundsson4397 maybe, but saying that germany got defeated by machine guns is like saying that the U.K got defeated by Tanks.
The germans were the most advanced nation when it came to machine gun doctrine, they relied on them and understood how they worked since the beginning. while france had no clue how deadly they were at first.
Conquer the world? I don't know what you're talking about...
Hey Chef, wann kommst du wieder?
__
Hey Boss, when do you come back?
@@geisterfahreruberholer2171 In kurzer Zeit, mein Freund, in kurzer Zeit
You showed Historical facts, yes, but why did you tack on this completely ridiculous assumption that the German Empire wanted to conquer the world? It's unfounded and even to the moron that the Second Willhelm was must've seemed an unrealistic and unachievable goal
wilhelm wasn't that bad lmao.
@@theveryproudmoroccan2834 Willhelm .II was an atrocious Emperor, a horrible Military Leader, an idiotic Diplomat and a mentally deeply troubled Person. He Made nothing but Bad choices, caused Germany to lose WWI and removed Bismarck from His Position. He was a terrible, terrible emperor.
@@enderkatze6129 , how would he be, next to Franz Josef?
@@mazadancoseben4818 what, one of the Austrian ones? I don't think they even Had a chance to try to Show Off their skills, considering the dumpster fire they ruled
@@enderkatze6129 , agreed
Their military was a joke
With people Conrad Von Hotzendorf in charge, it went badly
Wasn’t the reality closer to Germany being pressured into war by standing with Austria-Hungary, and making advantageous pre-emptive strikes against countries that were inevitable to join war against G&A-H, rather than Germany having dubious intentions of world domination...?
Now Hitler’s Germany in WWII is a different story, but I don’t think the two situations were all that similar..
I also don’t think that a pre-existing war plan being drawn up to invade France is much evidence of a countries intentions.
America had similar war plans drawn up in the lead up to WWII to account for situations where they may have to go to war with nearly any of their allies at the time, even Mexico and Canada I’m not mistaken.
Germany famously gave a "blank cheque" (meaning : do whatever you want, we support you) to Austria-Hungary when they asked if they could declare war on Russia over the Balkans crisis. So, no, they weren't reluctantly forced. Also, "advantageous pre-emptive strikes" is an interesting way to describe an aggression of neutral powers without casus belli. Add to that they were the first to use lethal gaz attacks, and the atrocities commited on civilians in the occupied territories (nowhere close in scale as WW2 was however), and I find it hard to paint the German Empire as this "poor undersdog trying to stand against the mean colonial empires". Especially if you know what they did in their african colonies prior to the war
@@samarkand1585 Oh come on, where is the intellectual honesty?
- Germany did not tell Austria-Hungary to do whatever and they'd support them. Luckily we KNOW what was communicated: Germany assured Austria-Hungary that their intent was „im Einklang mit seinen Bündnisverpflichtungen und seiner alten Freundschaft treu an der Seite Österreich-Ungarns [zu] stehen“. Meaning: Germany will "in accordance to the obligations of the alliance and her old friendship loyally stand by Austria-Hungary." That wasn't more or less than what the Russian Empire did concerning its' alliance with Serbia and France concerning its' alliance with Russia. The only difference is that Austria-Hungary had been subjected to a terrorist attack by Serbian special forces (a symphatetic orginisation lovingly called 'The Black Hand') and wanted to put a stop to that. Russia and France had no such motivation, the motivation of the Russian Empire was to further its' influence in the Balkans and France' motivation was entering war with Germany to get revenge on the Germans that had defeated France some 40 years prior.
- Yeah, the German army marched through Belgium. But that doesn't make Germany the general aggressor in WWI or an aggressive state in general. And because you make it a moralistic issue lateron: What about the sovereignty of:
Ashanti
Basutoland
Bechuanaland
Benin
Biafra
Cameroon
East Africa
Somaliland
the Cape Colony
Egypt
Bioko
Gambia
the Gold Coast
Kenya
Lagos
Nigeria
Libya
Natal
Niger
Nigeria
Central Africa
Rhodesia
Zimbabwe
South Africa
Sudan
Swaziland
Tangier
Tanganyika
Togo
Uganda
Zanzibar
Zululand
most of North America
Anguilla
Antigua
the Bahamas
Barbados
Barbuda
the Bay Islands
Honduras
the Virgin Islands
the Cayman Islands
Dominica
Grenada
Jamaica
the Leeward Islands
Montserrat
Nevis
Redonda
St. Christopher and Nevis (and other islands)
Tobago
Tortuga
Trinidad and Tobago
the West Indies
the Windward Islands
Berbice
British Guiana
Demerara
Essequibo
Oyapoc
Pomeroon
Afghanistan
Assam
Bahrain
Baluchistan
Bantam
Bengal
Brunei
Burma (now Myanmar)
Ceylon
Hong Kong (and China)
Kuwait
India
Iraq
Java
Malaya
Borneo
Palestine
Qatar
Surat
Singapore
... or even:
Gibraltar
Ireland
Scotland
I'm sure I missed some and that's only the UK, not including France and Belgium which both had extensive colonial empires as well. I guess those countries don't count much but marching through Belgium (not occupying it or claiming it, moving through it) is morally unforgivable. I also find it interesting that killing people with lethal gaz is unacceptable and where you draw a line but shooting them, burning them, blasting them with bombs or hacking them to pieces is appareantly fine. And in the light of the short list I provided above I don't think I have to make a case for the German Empire in regards to its colonies in comparison to the colonial powers, right?
I'm sure you'll figure out on your own why Britain and France do not have the moral high ground in this regard in the slightest. I'm not saying the German Empire was a paragon of virtue and everyone else was Sauron from LotR but the inverse is CERTAINLY not the case.
@@samarkand1585 Bullshit. Germany did not give Austria-Hungary a free pass. The war was started by Serbia because they assassinated the crown prince of Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary then declared war on Serbia and Russia got involved because they had an alliance with Serbia. Germany then intervened and supported Austria-Hungary. This in turn triggered France, not because of Belgium. So if anyone was to blame for WW1, it was Serbia and maybe Austria-Hungary, but Germany was dragged into it and ended up getting the ultimate punishment (Treaty of Versaille), which was the main reason for WW2.
@@abcdef-cs1jj Germany bad mkay? only France and Brits are allowed to invade brown people
@@samarkand1585
The start was kind of similar to 9/11 a terrorist attack from individuals against a country. And both times the allies gave them a "blank cheque" to help, although it is kind of stupid both times...
But the war was pretty unavoidable because of imperalism, nationalism and communism and every country wanted war. Nobody thought it would be that brutal and deadly, because it was the first war with the full Power of industrialization.
As a graduate of German studies: they didn't.
Germany lost 2 world wars to the same people, but ended up defeating them all in money now
defeated them by paying for them ;)
Also, there is a lot of technological stagnation here (barely any new innovation or new companies), and we are slowly falling apart because we will not able to pay for our social systems, especially our pension system in the future.
Chad Fourth Reich vs Virgin UK, France
so then we didn't actually lose. we won. period.
This was biased against Germans. These plans weren’t based out of conquest. They were pre emptive plans in case war came to them. The allies took all of Germany’s colonies, took their homeland, and forced war reparations all the same. You could say the allies plans were also for war conquest. It’s all about perspective. Conquest/liberation is only a point of view.
Yeah, I think you could tell that this was relatively biased in Entente favor.
@IK objectively that’s true, but if we decide that we want less suffering in the world as a species, communists and fascists are the side we should consider bad.
You know that the Lebensraum existed before ww1 and that Versailles was fair compared to any other treaty of the time, right?
true as a german myself and from my view i dont see any enemy as liberator...
"These plans weren’t based out of conquest"
[Citation needed]
There was a problem in Austria/Bosnia, so Germany attacked France? That is only logical as a war of conquest.
Furthermore, to avoid war, Germany intentionally gave Russia terms they could not accept. Germany *wanted* war.
Learn history.
At the end ultimately millions of soldiers died and a generation lost.
Mr Xavier is here🤣👌👌
The failure of the Schlieffen Plan, according to Colin McEvedy was the result of not anticipating the edge the machine gun gave defense vis-a-vis offense. It simply took less forces to hold a defense, and more soldiers to overtake a defensive position. In the aggregate, this caused the German line to contract and become more compact, while the the French lines were able to expand. Through out the first four weeks of the German offensive the French were continuely expanding to their left, and in more larger movements began moving more and more units from right to left, with a large reserve collected in Paris. Because the contraction of the “wheel” of the German offensive, the right most flank of the German offense did not swing around Paris, but instead dropped down in front of Paris, exposing their right flank to the French reserve army in Paris which moved troops out to the Marne to pound the exposed flank. As it happened the German exposed flank pivoted to face the French attack on their flank in good order, but that created a gap between that right most units and the line of units just to their left. Into that gap attacked a British Expeditionary Force that had also bivouacked in Paris and it was that attack that caused the defeat of the Germans at the battle of the Marne, and forced the Germans to fall back - and quickly the war fell into a line of trenches from Switzerland to the English Channel. Meanwhile - the Germans were eventually successful in the East. Essentially the Germans won in the East in WWI and lost in the West; in WWII they won in the west but lost in the East. Unfortunately, to win they had to win in both fronts.
Germany lost in the west as well in ww2.
Germany in WW1:
industry*
economy*
British and French: they are planning to conquer the world
just like today China. Western propaganda declares that Uyghurs are sent to concentration camps, which is totally a lie. History will prove this is a lie of century
@@yeshiyangzom8532 Here's your 50 cents
@@yeshiyangzom8532 +10 social credit !
The minute the ‘treaty of Versailles’ was signed was the birth of WW2
"Dragged France into the dispute" as if France hadn't been mobilizing and prepping to invade to take Elsaß-Lothringen.
I think you mean "to REtake *Alsace-Lorraine* " ;)
@ueueue2 eu32u722wuwuuw germany exist since 187x, france wanted this war to weaken germany befor they lose their influence about europe
yes yes, french the good guys lol ^^
@@cebonvieuxjack What? Retake? For thousands of years germans settled in Elsaß-Lothringen, until Ludwig XIV annected it. Even after years under the french flag, the big majority of the people still spoke german/the regional dialect. Up until 1946 over 90% of the people stated Alsatian as their main language. The architecture is typical german, the city names too.
@@cebonvieuxjack No! Pig feeder got it right.
@@peterlustig6888 sure... still ours tho :)
Germany in 1913- "Economically speaking, we're Number 1!"
Germany in 1919- "I don't wanna talk about it."
The Video was really good and looked great
This video is an OUTRAGE! Imperial Germany didnt have plans to conquer such a vast territories as this video suggests! For example Belgium and east Europeans states were only gonna be occupied to get a deal done with the allies. After that would abandon it like they did when they made peace with the Soviet Union. They did want a big Colonial empire in Africa and Asia and severely weaken France, that's all.
"Imperial Germany didnt have plans to conquer such a vast territories as this video suggests!"
I know, it would be too much aggressive expansion and overextension.
@@theedgar1239 yeah they just wanted to force a quick surrender on the Entente and maybe gain some land
@@jeff1liam2 You are late to reply and you don't seem to understand what I mean. I made an EU4 reference.
I'm sorry but the facts don't care about your feelings:
"The Septemberprogramm was a list of goals for Germany to achieve in the war:[4][5]
-France should cede some northern territory, such as the iron-ore mines at Briey and a coastal strip running from Dunkirk to Boulogne-sur-Mer, to Belgium or Germany.
-France should pay a war indemnity of 10 billion German Marks, with further payments to cover veterans' funds and to pay off all of Germany's existing national debt. This would prevent French rearmament for the next couple of decades, make the French economy dependent on Germany, and end trade between France and the British Empire.
France will partially disarm by demolishing its northern forts.
-Belgium should be annexed to Germany or, preferably, become a vassal state, which should cede eastern parts and possibly Antwerp to Germany and give Germany military and naval bases.
-Luxembourg should become a member state of the German Empire.
-Buffer states would be created in territory carved out of the western Russian Empire, such as Poland, which would remain under German sovereignty.[4]
-Germany would create a Mitteleuropa economic association, ostensibly egalitarian but actually dominated by Germany. Members would be France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria-Hungary, the new buffer states, and possibly Italy, Sweden, and Norway.[6]
-The German colonial empire would be expanded. The German possessions in Africa would be enlarged to create a contiguous German colony across central Africa (Mittelafrika) at the expense of the French and Belgian colonies. Presumably to leave open future negotiations with Britain, no British colonies were to be taken, but Britain's "intolerable hegemony" in world affairs was to end.
-The Netherlands should be brought into a closer relationship to Germany while avoiding any appearance of coercion.
Most major countries have war plans on how to conquer any one enemy or multiple enemies. It doesn’t necessarily mean they’re getting ready to go to war. These are just plans in the event of war. This video even mentioned the original plan was created well before World War I. Britain and France were just as eager to rush in to war with their great plans for quick conquest and expansion of their influence and power. The simple reality is world war one happened because of treaties. All the European nations had treaties with other countries stating they would come to their defense in a time of war. Had the two countries, Austria-Hungarian empire and Bosnia, chosen to address the assassination of the Archduke and his wife as a murder rather than an act of war World War it would not have started. But the Germans were align with the Austria-Hungarian empire and they went to war over the assassination. Germany went to war because they were obligated by treaties just like France and then England when Germany invaded Belgium. I wish people would quit trying to twist history. If the Bosnian nationalist hadn’t murdered the archduke of Hungry and his wife or the two countries just considered it a murder and not declared war the rest of Europe would’ve remained at peace.
Also because they didn’t accept the last term which was to investigate the case.
At least the guy felt sorry for what he did.
The most famous of such battle plans was the US-Invasion of Canada, which was planned, I think until ww2, which saw them taking and holding canada just to be blockaded by the Royal Navy on al coasts.
@let's travel to blame Kaiser Wilhelm II solely for WW1, paint gruesome picture of him and the empire is factually wrong and just a répétition of an uninformed German narrative and ideological history teaching. Kaiser Wilhelm II was in Norway at the time of the assassination. He at first decided not to mobilize and stop his cruise as to not make the situation more volatile but instead make it seem like a German interpretation as just a small crisis, before being convinced otherwise by the government and general staff. He was definitely somewhat aggressive before ww1 and excile. But the German population was not less into this war then him. Partially more the opposite. At least in the leading classes!
Thank you for this sane analyses
@Let's Travel moroccan crisis was actually france and gb antagonising germany
Really interesting!
Thanks, I enjoyed this video.
Nice video Knowledgia :)
"Conquer the world"
Beady eyes, Anglo lies
Typical projection.
I WANTED THIS FOR A LONG LONG TIME, THANKS ✨
I love your channel keep up the great stuff
Good video! Subscribed.
Really nice job on the animations! Who do you think came closest to conquering the world? How could Germany have won World War I?
Britain? They owned 70% of the worlds population at one point?
“The speed at which the Germans intended to advance was unobtainable.”
Hitler: “Hold my Blitzkrieg”
I like the stone moving sound effect you added
thank your videos
I think "conquer the world" are the wrong words
On purpose to please the zionists.
I'm getting Kaiserreich vibes...
Excelent video, btw!
Same
good job logarithm ... just heard a podcast on spotify ... now all I get is WW1 suggestions ...
Very clean animation. Respect.
5:30 I mean Germany did achieve this, not that time, but the EU still happened later.
That's like saying that Germany is the sole leader of the EU. But it's not
no, it completely autonomous. It doesn't even have a defensive treaty with the US
@_𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰜_ ok?
@@Marcus-ni6ip Autonomous maybe but not sovereign because it has no army unlike France or UK.
@@BlackHawk2b which doesn't not make it a puppet, maybe you could see a sorta protectorate sorta relation ship because of NATO but it is definitely not a puppet
Only thing the Kaiser wanted was a navy on eye-level with the huge British fleet. Feeling so because himself was half a Brit. For sure he never had in mind to conquer Europe or even more unrealistic, the world.
The Kaiser was not half a brit. The britsh royal family actually came from a german dynasty, the House of Sachsen-Coburg and Gotha.
George V, the king then in 1917 renamed the German name of the dynasty in Windsor.
Yep he wanted to make his grandmother queen Victoria proud.
Stable video 👍
nice vid
Plans are sound and perfect until reality and the others parts comes into play.
Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth
@@TreeCamper That makes most of the plans crumble in a painful way
What i heard the entire video: Kaiserreich, kaiserreich, some kaiserreich and lets not forget about kaiserreich...
Great narration
I like how you used a Wonderdraft map
I like how a German victory is still not even as big of an empire as Britain and France
The September Programme depicted in this is slightly misleading. The buffer states between Germany and Russia (Poland, Latvia, etc.) were to be controlled by Germany OR Poland. As for the colonies in Africa, Germany only wanted French territories that would help connect German colonies together to create a bloc.
Also, remember that the September Programme was only announced AFTER Britain declared war. Also keep in mind that these were Germany's conditions given to France when they believed they were going to win. The stipulations given in the Programme for a winning nation were mighty conservative.
Furthermore, people act like Germany's invasion of Belgium was a moral travesty. Meanwhile, it's a fact that had Germany not invaded Belgium - which would have given Britain reason to join the war - then Churchill was prepared to break Belgium's neutrality anyway.
And Wilhelm II made some vague plans to invade America? Who cares? Germany hadn't seen combat since 1870-1871 in the Franco-Prussian war, and Kaiser Wilhelm II had never seen any combat in the 25 years of his reign until WWI. Meanwhile, Churchill was basically a blood thirsty tyrant who sought every reason to start a war. He even relished in the idea:
"My darling one & beautiful: Everything tends toward catastrophe & collapse. I am interested, geared up and happy. Is it not horrible to be built like that?" - Churchill
"Winston dashed into the room, radiant, his face bright, his manner keen, one word pouring out after another how he was going to send telegrams to the Mediterranean, the North Sea, and God knows where. You could see he was a really happy man." - Lloyd George speaking about Churchill's demeanor shortly after Britain declared war
Let's not forget the fact that Churchill created food blockades that not only starved non-combatants in Germany, but also Belgians - the same nation that Britain rallied her population around to defend to get general approval for entering the war.
The real villains here were Britain and Churchill, not Germany.
lmao fuck did Winston Churchill do in WW1, he is an asshole no doubt but you got the wrong war
I freakin love that there was a Bundeswehr ad before the vid. You can't make this stuff up 🤣
Liked video! Could listen to more... So will do! Interesting!🇩🇪🌿🌹😎❤️❗
Part of this video is poorly explained you made it sound like Germany just decorated war on France and attacked Belgium for no reason and Germany would most likely not annex Dunkirk Northern France and Belgium
9:31 - Dying out of laughter on that part xD
German borders in 1914 and 1939 were just perfect. Berlin was almost litterally in the center of it all.
The original Schlieffen plan was actually modified by Moltke near the beginning of WW1. Moltke's modified plan is actually what's been enacted during WW1, hence why the name is also "the Schlieffen-Moltke Plan". Schlieffen's original plan was actually two scenarios:
-First is a one front war to the West (basically against France and possibly the UK). That is the infamous plan of going around the Maginot Line and encircling the entire French army at the Eastern border, in order to give a massive blow to the French and conquer the country in just about 6 weeks.
-Second is a plan for a two front war where Germany would be stuck between France and Russia. The plan was to divide the entire army into an 80/20 ratio. 80% of the army would be sent to the Western Front and 20% to the Eastern front. Unlike the first one front war plan, this plan would play out more defensively. The Germans would not make offensives and instead offer heavy counter-offensives against the French and Russians, probably using their superior artillery at the time (some good old Napoleon tactics). This would put a heavy blow on France's and Russia's manpower and war economy, weakening them slowly. Germany would have likely lost some territory, probably in the East and suffer a lot in the West, however without invading Belgium, the UK wouldn't intervene yet. It's only when France is weakened enough that Germany would suddenly invade through the common border and conquer the country in a matter of weeks, similar to the first plan. After defeating France, most of the army that has been sent to the Western Front would be transfered to the East (using fast railroads for the time) and attack Russia.
Had the Schlieffen plan not been modified by Moltke and other generals and commanders, Germany could have seriously managed to bring the Central Powers closer to victory, if not actually win the war, creating a "German World".
The boarders of 1914 Europe are so pleasing to look at!
Not if you are Polish, Czech, Slovak, Slovenian, Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian, Romanian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Finnish, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Greek, Italian, Irish, French ....
@sneksnekitsasnek ah yes china with the good people
Battle of the Marne 1914 is still the most under appreciated battle in history considering it’s importance.
Also very costly 1/2 Million Casualties in just a few days. I’m pretty sure on a day to day basis proportionately that blows Stalingrad or Kursk out of the water.
In the grand scheme of things, the battle of Kursk was pretty standard for the Eastern Front of WW2 in casualties. It only gets the fan fare it does because of the tank numbers used and the potential significance of a German victory. The battle had less casualties overall than the Marne, and lasted for almost 2 entire months.
@@Man_0f_Trenches I mean according to the Wikipedia page the soviets suffered around 800,000-1.2M casualties and the Germans 250.000 some odd. Some of those Soviets were sick but still.
Battle of the Marne 250,000 on both sides in a week with inferior weaponry. If you’re reading the report that it was only 250,000 on both sides at Kursk. I don’t think that’s true.
@NavySeal6ix
Yeah the Soviets had a habit of downplaying casualties sometimes they just had no clear numbers because they lost the reinforcements before they knew how many of them had arrived, they also didnt really care about the numbers that died after the fighting in field hospital s....
There is also the fact that the germans took a bit of creative freedom with their numbers too, for example the claims of the destroyed tanks at kursk are a highly debated topic. :)
Lmao I got an ad in the beginning of the video of a world war strategy game
da kaiser in the thumbnail be lookin like he bouta score a point in basketball
If only they read their own books...
“The enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan.”
Carl von Clausewitz
actually the british empire covered at one point over 37% of the world in 1920
It wasn't that bad
The thumbnail itself is already ally propaganda how is the rest of the video gonna be?
"The Schlieffen plan sounds good on paper-" And it's good in practice. It worked twice and failed once. They used the same plan in the Franco-Prussian war and WW2. Even in WW1 most of the fighting in the west was fought on territory outside Germany.
It wasn't the same plan for the other wars. For one Russia wasn't in either of the wars Germany won against France. The Schlieffen plan was created precisely for a war against France and Russia in which they would need to race against time to prevent a two fronts attrition war. In WW2 Hitler waited almost a year before invading france after the invasion of Poland...
Bro are you trying to argue with an actual historian
@@infinite074 damn you just adopt the opinions from large youtube channels without thinking about it yourself?
@@hyperthulean8649 Thinking for yourself is no good if you’re objectively wrong. Prussia did not use the schlieffen plan against France. They never violated Belgian neutrality and fought against France and only France.
@@benweaver5042 Wow, so the plan to attack France through Belgium that they used 3 times back to back isn't the exact same plan each time?! What a wonder!
The kaiser in the thumbnail be like : I eat the world for breakfast
The late Robert Conroy wrote an alternate history novel, titled "1901", that explored an Imperial German invasion of the United States. I recommend it.👍
Also, in "The Repairer of Reputations" from Robert W. Chambers (featured in "The King in Yellow") is set in a fictional near future (1920s) and a German-American war (with a failed invasion of the continental US) is mentioned.
I swear the dialogue is slowed down to reach 10 min lmao
This is what they mean when they say never underestimate your enemies.
Maybe it is time for the Europeans for another War within Europe? And this time, we will call it the European War, since the rest of the world does not need to participate.
Well they didnt, they knew they had only one chance to win the war and even this chance was a 1/5 chance. But a 20% chance of winning is good enough for most generals, most are gamblers by nature....
As others have mentioned before, the reason for starting this war is a bit simplified. As a Belgian I know my country was as impearealistic as Germany, but just didn't have the means to be it (completely). Wars in the second half of the 19th century caused the formation of two fronts which escalated with the elimination of the crown prince of Austria-Hungary. Saying that the Germans are the aggressors here is plainly wrong.
Germany did NOT want to conquer the world in ww1. Guys, please read the book "sleepwalkers" from Christopher Clark. Peace
it would be interesting to see how a world in which this had happened would've turned out
The thumbnail is funny af😂
Am I the only one who clicked on this because I mistook the thumbnail as being from an Armchair Historian video?
Germany's borders before 1918 be looking THICC.
Imagine if Austria, Switzerland and Lichtenstein were added.
Some useful infos for all these who have any doubt about if Macedonia=Greece :
1.
There is no doubt that ancient Macedonians were Greek. It is thoroughly
proved by historic documents and archaeological discoveries which can
be found in history books and museums in Greece and arround the world.
The most important archeological discovery in Macedonia is the tomb of
King Philippos II. It was excavated in Vergina, Greece in 1978 and it
proves beyond any doubt the Greekness of ancient Macedonia. All the
findings are characteristic of the Greek culture and all the
inscriptions are written using the Greek language. Among the discoveries
of this tomb is the "Vergina sun" the symbol that FYROM attempted to
use on its flag initially. Some facts which prove that ancient
Macedonians were Greek.
2. Macedonians spoke a dialect of the
Greek language All the monuments and inscriptions found in the Macedonia
region are written in the Greek language. It is also crearly stated by
the Latin historian Titus Livius: "Aetolians, Acarnanians, Macedonians,
men of the same language..." (T. Livius XXXI,29, 15) and the Greek
historian Herodotos : "Since they speak the same language, they should
end their disputes by means of heralds or messengers..." (Herodotos, The
histories 7.9.2)
3. Macedonians had Greek names.All the ancient
Macedonian names mentioned in history or found on tombs are Greek. All
the kings of Ancient Macedonia had Greek names. Nobody discovered
ancient Macedonian names ending to-ov or-ovski or whatever. Alexander's
name is Greek. The word "Alexandros" is produced from the pre-fix
alex(=protector) and the word andros(=man) meaning "he who protects
men". The prefix "alex" can be found in many Greek words today
(alexip-toto=parachute, alexisfairo=bulletproof all these words have the
meaning of protection). Philip's name is also Greek. It is produced
from the prefix Philo(=friendly to something) and the word ippos(=horse)
meaning the man who is friendly to horses. The prefix "philo" and the
word "ippos" are also found in many words of Greek origin today
(philosophy, philology, hippodrome,hippocampus).
4. Macedonians
fought together with the rest of the Greeks. Macedonians always fought
along with the other Greek citystates against enemies from Asia.
5.
Macedonians took part in the Olympic gamesIt is well known then ONLY
Greeks were allowed to take part in the ancient Olympic games. The first
Macedonian who took part in the Olympic games was Alexander I, King of
Macedonia between 498-454 BC
6. Macedonians celebrated the same
festivals as the rest of the Greeks. Examples of festivals which were
celebrated in Macedonia as well as in other Greek states are the
"Hetaireidia", the "Apellaia" and many more.
7. Macedonians
worshiped the same Gods as the rest of the Greeks Several temples
dedicated to the Greek Gods have beem discovered in Macedonia and
especially in Dion the religious center of ancient Macedonians.It is
obvious that the Macedonias worshiped the 12 Olympian Gods as the rest
of the Greeks The Gods were "living" on Mount Olympos which happens to
be located in Macedonia. Would that be possible if there was hostility
between Macedonians and Greeks? This is another proof that Macedonia was
considered a part of Greece.The regions of ancient Macedonia had Greek
names.
8. The regions which formed ancient Macedonia had Greek
names. Most of these names are used in Greece even today. You can see a
list of the regions of ancient Macedonia:Anthemous, Almopia, Amphaxitis,
B isaltia, Botiaia, Chakildiki, Edonis,Elimeia, Eordaia, Krestonia,
Lynkests, Mygdonia, Odomantis, Orestis,Paionia, Pelagonia, Pieria,
Sintiki, Thassos, Tymphaea.I listed them here for two reasons: 1st
Because all of them are obviously Greek, 2nd The Slavic propaganda
insists that the Greeks changed the Slavic names of regions in Agean
Macedonia in order to eradicate its "Slavic identity". This list proves
that the Greek names originate from the ancient times and consequently
they are much older than the Slavic alternatives. Most of these names
are used even today by Greece. Macedonian architecture was similar to
the Greek architecture All the buldings found in the Macedonia region
have many common characteristics with the ones found in the rest of
Greece. Palaces, temples, the aters markets are characteristic sampes of
ancient Greek architecture.
Some more evidence from history
1.
The famous ancient Greek play writer Euripidis wrote and originally
presented most of his plays in Pella, the capital of Macedonia. How that
possible if the audiance was spoke a different language?
2. After
the battle of the Grannikos Alexander the Great sent to Athens some
pieces of armor captured from the Persians with the following
inscription : "Alexander, son of Philip and the Hellenes, except the
Lakedaimonians, offer these spoils taken from the barbarians of Asia".
3.
Macedonia was a member of the Delphic Amfictiony, an institution which
was open only to Greeks. 4. When Alexander arrived in Asia he visited
the ancient Greek town of Troy (Troia),where he sacrifised to the Greek
Gods to help him in his quest.
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
1. Alexander's mother was Epirotian ( born and raised in the Kingdom of Epirus).
2. Alexander's cousin was Phyrrus , the great King of Epirus and the 2nd most worthy general of all time according to Hannibal Barca. The 1st was Alexander.
3. Ότι είναι Έλληνες όσοι κατάγονται από τον Περδίκκα, όπως λένε κι οι ίδιοι, το ξέρω κι εγώ καλά, μάλιστα θα το αποδείξω και παρακάτω. Αλλά και οι οργανωτές των Ολυμπιακών αγώνων το ήξεραν ότι έτσι είναι. Όταν ο Αλέξανδρος θέλησε να πάρει μέρος στους αγώνες και κατέβηκε στην Ολυμπία ειδικά γι"αυτό, οι Έλληνες αντίπαλοί του έκαναν ένσταση λέγοντας ότι δεν μπορούν ν'αγωνιστούν βάρβαροι στους Ολυμπιακούς Αγώνες, αλλά μόνο Έλληνες. Τότε ο Αλέξανδρος απέδειξε ότι είναι Αργείος στην καταγωγή και κρίθηκε Έλληνας. Αγωνίστηκε στο δρόμο του ενός σταδίου και άγγιξε το τέρμα ταυτόχρονα με τον πρώτο. Έτσι φαίνεται ότι έγιναν αυτά.
Ηρόδοτος.
That these who come from Perdikka( it is located in the province of Macedonia of Greece) are Greeks, as they say, I know it as well, and I'm going to prove it above. But, the organizers of the Olympic Games knew it was like this. When Alexander ( Not the Great Alexander , but Alexander the 1st took part in the Olympic Games in 460 BC for the first time. It was the first time a Greek Macedonian took part in) wanted to participate in the Games and moved down to Olympia( where the Games were held) just for it, the Greeks competitors of his told him that barbarians ( non-Greeks) could not take part in the Olympic Games, but only Greeks could. Then, Alexander proved that he was an Argios( a Greek tribe) and was now considered a Greek. He took part in the race of one stadium( measurement unit of ancient Greeks , which Macedonians also used) and finished simultaneously with the first. This is how it happened
Herodotus
4. From that moment the Macedonians were taking part in every Olympic Games and were recognized as Greeks as well as their ancestors.
5. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdikkas,_Kozani a link to Perdikkas location.
6. BTW the Kingdom of Epirus had under their control the modern day Albania...maybe they weren't Greeks but Albanias...LOL...
7. If you claim that Greece didn't exist then , then you are wrong. After the Persian Wars every city-state and kingdom that was Greek felt united and historians such as Xenophon, Herodotus and Thucidides use the term Greece and Greeks many times. Every citizen back then used it as well. According to Greek Mythology, though, Hellen ( Son of Deukalion) was a descendant of the great Achilles and his companions ( about 12 Century BC).
8. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argead_dynasty the Greek Macedonian Dynasty.
Although It doesnt need, because the truth has been spoken years ago, but some still cant accept it...so, here it is. The text you just read proves that Macedonians were Greeks and that Greece existed as a NATION , not as an empire/kingdom/republic or whatever.
Very very very good.
Please make a video on Legendary Albanian General Skanderbeg
Look Kings and Generals
You can find one
Propaganda title, how the hell is this "conquering the world"
Beady eyes, Anglo lies
@Jinx Vanderz How’s that different than the previous thousands of years?
@Jinx Vanderz dumbass they never planned to conquer the whole world, also colonialism was a good thing
@@theotheagendashill818 bro ur first point is right, they never planned to conquer the world, but u saing the colonialsim was a good thing, bro it defenetly wasnt. But dont get me wrong, i hope u underline ur theses with arguments, because im curios to hear how u want to defend the claim that colonialism was a good thing.
@@sebastianrose6248 it was partially good because it civilized Africa and the Americas
0:32 thats where the phrase "The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire" comes from.
Love the video! You should make this same video but on ww2
My September program: b-day party
Germany's:
M - Germany's: "Invade Poland ... again"!! LoL
Seeing as the invasion of Belgium faced much steeper resistance than the Germans expected and was the trigger that brought the British Empire into the war, it's interesting to wonder how quickly Germany would have won if it fought a two-front war against only France and Russia. They were so close to winning, even with the British among the Allies and a grueling 2-front conflict. I wonder if it was even possible to avoid Britain's entrance into the war. I also wonder if a British delay, allowing them to see the massive casualties both sides were sustaining, may have deterred them from getting involved if the invasion of Belgium didn't bring them in right away.
Sickth...what happened to the x in sixth??
0:48
It depends on how you interpret the word 'world'.
At the time of the Macedonian Empire, the Indus river was considered to be the end of the world by many.