Another important factor missing is the decline of the Ottoman Empire created a power vacuum in the Balkans which the Austro-Hungarians and Russia vied for influence and control while the British and the Russians butted heads on what to do with the Ottoman Empire. While Germany itself wanted to preserve the Empire against the Russians. German Empire also increases its influence in the Ottoman Empire with the Baghdad railway and the British believed their control of the Suez was under threat and their control of the Persian gulf.
Many British people don't understand, and never have understood, a Russian viewpoint of history! What Russia has really watched and seen going on throughout history? It's actually quite amusing... France takes Algeria from Turkey, and almost every year, England annexes another Indian principality. None of this disturbs the balance of power in Europe, but when Russia occupies Moldavia and Wallachia, (albeit only temporarily), that disturbs the balance of power in Europe. LMAO France occupies Rome, and stays there several years (during peacetime) refusing to leave, that's just nothing, but Russia only thinks of occupying Constantinople, and the peace of Europe is threatened. LOL. The English declare war on the Chinese, (who have, it seems, offended them, LOL), no one has the right to intervene, speak, or even ask a question, but Russia is obliged to ask Europe for permission, if it quarrels with its neighbour? LMAO. England threatens Greece, to support the false claims of a miserable Jew, LOL, and burns the entire Greek fleet hahaha oops, that is a lawful action, LMAO, but Russia demands a treaty to protect millions of Christians, and that is deemed to strengthen Russia's position in the East, and of course, at the expense of the balance of power in Europe! LOL. Russia can expect nothing from the West, but blind hatred, and malice. History is never, just black and white. LOL. So much British history can be explained by Britain's own paranoia of the Russian Empire, and so much Russian history can be explained by Russia's own paranoia of the British Empire.
@@hotstepper887 Then German had rights to attack Serbia cause Serbia is major reason to start WW1. Arch Duke Ferdinand was innocent but Serbia was paranoid in it right British should had respected German and Austria right to declare war on Serbia.
WWI is still defining the world we live in. The Sykes Picot line, the Balfour Declaration, the rise of the Soviet Union, the rise of post colonial nation states the list never ends
The photo at 6:08 mark is not that of Princip, the assassin of the Archduke per noted historian, Christopher Clark. In his lectures Clark states the man was another Serb who had been taken for questioning and released.
Quite true - add the rise in US power to your list . However , there have been major events that have occurred since - After Gorbachev agreed to dismantle the Soviet Union , the US implemented the Wolfowtiz doctrine - The Neo Colonialism that is occurring in Africa today - Kissinger, Nixon and Trudeau initiating trade with China - helping to turn it into a super power - The rise of Britain's Second Empire ( "the Square Mile" banking and offshore islands ) .
Many British people don't understand, and never have understood, a Russian viewpoint of history! What Russia has really watched and seen going on throughout history? It's actually quite amusing... France takes Algeria from Turkey, and almost every year, England annexes another Indian principality. None of this disturbs the balance of power in Europe, but when Russia occupies Moldavia and Wallachia, (albeit only temporarily), that disturbs the balance of power in Europe. LMAO France occupies Rome, and stays there several years (during peacetime) refusing to leave, that's just nothing, but Russia only thinks of occupying Constantinople, and the peace of Europe is threatened. LOL. The English declare war on the Chinese, (who have, it seems, offended them, LOL), no one has the right to intervene, speak, or even ask a question, but Russia is obliged to ask Europe for permission, if it quarrels with its neighbour? LMAO. England threatens Greece, to support the false claims of a miserable Jew, LOL, and burns the entire Greek fleet hahaha oops, that is a lawful action, LMAO, but Russia demands a treaty to protect millions of Christians, and that is deemed to strengthen Russia's position in the East, and of course, at the expense of the balance of power in Europe! LOL. Russia can expect nothing from the West, but blind hatred, and malice. History is never, just black and white. LOL. So much British history can be explained by Britain's own paranoia of the Russian Empire, and so much Russian history can be explained by Russia's own paranoia of the British Empire.
@@hotstepper887 you have interesting points but saying “LOL” all the time in all caps really takes away from your message and makes you sound like you are 14.
1870, Britain had 32 percent of the world's manufacturing capacity, but by 1910 Germany had 15.9 percent and Britain had only 14.7 percent. (The U.S. had also boomed, with 35.3 percent.) And Germany, now industrialized, began to develop colonial ambitions, which caused conflicts with Britain, France, and other European countries. 1897 debate in the German Reichstag, its parliament, the foreign secretary stated, "In one word: We wish to throw no one into the shade, but we demand our own place in the sun." The head of the German Empire, Kaiser Wilhelm II, committed himself to making Germany into a global power through aggressive diplomacy and the acquisition of overseas colonies. One instance of the kaiser's aggressive diplomacy was in North Africa. In 1905, he disembarked from a German warship in the Moroccan port of Tangier and spoke in favor of Moroccan independence. Germany had no real interest in Morocco, but France did. The kaiser's goal was to support the sultan of Morocco and to impress others with Germany's power and prestige. A conference took place the next year in the Spanish town of Algeciras to discuss issues of international law in the African colonies. But the outcome was not particularly positive for Germany, because Britain voted with France, as did Italy, and only Austria backed the kaiser. In July 1911, a German gunboat, the Panther, arrived at Agadir, a large city on the Moroccan coast. The Germans stated that they had come to protect Morocco from French troops, which had entered the city of Fez to put down rebels. But Germany's true goal was to get access to territory in the Congo. Negotiations between France and Germany resulted in Germany's obtaining a small parcel of territory in the French Equatorial African colony of Middle Congo - a marshy area where sleeping sickness was widespread. The kaiser in Germany, jealous of Great Britain's empire, implemented Weltpolitik, "world policy." The aim of Weltpolitikwas to transform Germany into a global power through aggressive diplomacy, the acquisition of overseas colonies, and the development of a large navy. The kaiser believed that Germany's greatness depended on her becoming a naval power. "We have fought for a place in the sun," the kaiser said, and won it. "Our future is on the water." And Britain, which long had enjoyed naval supremacy, became alarmed at Germany's intentions. From 1902 until war broke out in 1914, the British and Germans engaged in a naval arms race. The British designed a powerful new battleship, the Dreadnought, which it launched in 1906. The Germans immediately copied the Dreadnought, and the British Admiralty decided to maintain as many ships as Germany plus an additional six. The British also redistributed their ships so the biggest and most powerful ships were situated to fight the Germans. The effects of this race put a huge financial burden on both countries. But the naval race continued as the two powers struggled to dominate the seas. The Russians and Japanese, competing for territory in Korea and Manchuria, went to war in 1904. The Russians also had imperialist goals in Persia and on the borderlands with India, which created tension with Britain. India was part of the British Empire, and the British were also heavily invested in Persia, which it saw as an important source of oil. 1908. Russia was trying, as it had throughout history, to get control of the Turkish Straits (the Bosporus, the Sea of Marmara, and the Dardanelles), which connect the Black and Aegean seas. Control of the straits would give the Russian navy access to the Aegean and the Mediterranean. August 1, France ordered mobilization, and two hours later Germany declared war on Russia. The final step, which brought Britain into the war, came on August 3 when Germany invaded Belgium and declared war on France. Britain issued a 24-hour ultimatum demanding that Germany withdraw its forces from Belgium. Germany refused, and on August 4, 1914, Germany and Britain were at war. The Zimmerman Telegraph "We intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal or alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The settlement in detail is left to you. You will inform the President of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States of America is certain and add the suggestion that he should, on his own initiative, invite Japan to immediate adherence and at the same time mediate between Japan and ourselves. Please call the President's attention to the fact that the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace." Signed, ZIMMERMANN. THE HAZARDS OF THE UNFORESEEN World War I was probably history’s worst catastrophe, and U.S. President Woodrow Wilson was substantially responsible for unintended consequences of the war that played out in Germany and Russia, contributing to the rise of totalitarian regimes and another world war. American “isolationism” - armed neutrality would be a more accurate term - developed as a sensible reaction to his policies. After Germany’s initial advances into the Low Countries and France, the adversaries in World War I dug trenches and seldom advanced or retreated much from those lines. German soldiers were generally outnumbered on the Western Front, but the Germans had smarter generals and more guns. The British navy enforced an effective blockade that made it difficult for the Germans to obtain many vital supplies, including food. Germany responded by building a submarine fleet, but it didn’t give them a way to invade Britain or the United States. By 1918, the war had been stalemated for more than three years, neither side able to force vindictive terms on the other. One of the last German offensives ground to a halt in the French countryside when German commanders couldn’t prevent their starving soldiers, amazed by the abundance of food, from gorging themselves on cheeses, sausages, and wine. If the U.S. had stayed out of the war, it seems likely there would have been some kind of negotiated settlement. Neither the Allied Powers (France, Britain, Russia, Italy, Japan, and several smaller states) nor the Central Powers (Germany, Austria‐ Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria) would have gained everything they wanted from a negotiated settlement. Both sides would have complained. But a catastrophe would have been less likely after a negotiated settlement than after vindictive terms were forced on the losers. The U.S. played a significant military role only during the last six months of the war, but that was enough to change history - for the worse. By entering the war on the side of the French and British, Wilson put them in a position to break the stalemate, win a decisive victory, and - most important - force vindictive surrender terms on the losers. France in 1870 - a war that France had started. Clemenceau wasn’t to be denied, since most of the fighting during World War I took place on French soil and the French suffered some 6 million casualties. He made sure the Versailles Treaty obligated Germany to pay huge reparations and surrender a long list of assets including coal, trucks, guns, and ships - private property as well as property of the German government.
I was teaching a class and asked them this "who started WWI?". One of the boys put his hand up, "it wasn't me, Sir" he said. I took him to the headmaster and told him what the boy had said. "I know this lad well", said the head, "he's usually a good boy. If he says it wasn't him, I believe him".
To quote a man of the time: 'The thing is: The way I see it, these days there's a war on, right? and, ages ago, there wasn't a war on, right? So, there must have been a moment when there not being a war on went away, right? and there being a war on came along. So, what I want to know is: How did we get from the one case of affairs to the other case of affairs?'
I understood Serbia’s “failure” to meet the Austro-Hungarians’ steep ultimatum (6:23) was because the German general staff pressured them (A-H) to refuse to accept any concession from Serbia, which the Serbians actually wanted to do. In point of fact they didn’t want Serbia to capitulate - that’s why the ultimatum was intentionally so draconian. This is not a trivial point - it means the war could have been avoided, if the Central Powers had a sincere desire to do so.
This is why modern academia has ironically come round to the immediate post-war conclusion of the 1920s that it was indeed Germany that was the prime mover of the crisis.
If you actually read the ultimatum, you would understand that it was far from "steep". It was basically a demand for serbia to stop committing espinoge within austro Hungary, and bring those responsible for the previous espionage to trial. Serbia didnt "comply". The demand they "complied" was a trial to find those connections with the black hand, (the leader was the highest rank in the the serbian intelegence command) , where the serbians "investigated" themselves, that lasted no more then a week, and basically said they they found themselves completely innocent on all accusations. The war EASILY could have been avoided, had france not been gatekeeping serbian independence and ability to commit terrorists attacks within AH.
Germany was planning to build the Berlin-to-Baghdad railroad. This would have enabled Germany to build an oil pipeline along the right-of-way securing an oil supply for its industrialization and mobilization. Such a railroad would have bypassed Britain's dominance of the seas and made Germany a power in Europe.
Yes, but a single pipeline, in those days, from a fairly limited oilfields in the region that were not even theirs, would not really create that big of an impact. It would have taken decades to complete and still Germany would not be even in the top 5 oil producers. Also, you need to realize that even in WWII, industry of countries still depended on coal, not oil. Coal was the main source of power and for the strategic over-land transport of goods, men and resources. So the Berlin-Baghdad railway was a thing to consider, sure, but it was but a drop in a bucket of reasons. And Germany was already a power in Europe. Arguably, the biggest one individually. It was the most developed one, for certain. So on the continental Europe, nothing would have changed that much really if the railway is finished.
@@Wustenfuchs109 coal was the main source of power up until the 1950s, slowly being phased out by oil and coal was still (in fact it still is to this day) the main source of electricity.
Very informative. It shows very well how easily local conflicts can escalate into major wars under the wrong conditions. It's a sobering reminder of how important the current war in Ukraine is, and what could potentially be at stake if global food supplies remain threatened by that conflict.
@@andrewx7806 you're right but hopefully not. That - would be awful. But you're right, it could happen. Or as is being reported, China could see Ukraine as their trial balloon for invading Taiwan. I certainly pray that doesn't happen.
absolutely. a corrupt European country nominally ruled by an ex-comedian isn't worth another world war. and NATO is an anti-Russian alliance and needs to be disbanded.
Germany's fleet was never at more than 20% of the Royal Navy, that was used as a pretext only. Sir Edward Grey started negotiating with France in 1906 but didn't tell anyone in parliament until the war had already begun. Britain's first division went to Basra, the Berlin-Baghdad Railway was prevented from completion, Churchill moved the fleet in position before the war, which was forbidden, Britain seized all German colonies as soon as war was declared, Britain had no obligations towards Belgium. By secretly aligning with France, Russia AND Serbia, Britain clearly demonstrated her intention to crush Germany's fast growing economy, industrial might and to seize all foreign markets. That was also demonstrated by the whole Versailles tragic comedy, particularly by Churchill's ongoing food blockade that starved to death around 700,000 German civilians and the famous guilt clause which was based on the non-sensical assumptions that the Kaiser and his government had planned, provoked, started and had committed war crimes the likes of which no one could imagine when they all knew nothing of the sort was true, that war was all about oil and preserving Britain's supremacy using secret alliances and the means of total destruction rather than by honest and open commercial competition. Germany had nothing to gain from going to war at that time, she was doing better than ever before and the Kaiser was perfectly aware that she had everything to lose.
How naive. If Britain had no obligations to Belgium, Germany had none to Austro-Hungary. If Germany hadn't backed them in their absurd demands against Serbia there would have been no war. As to intending or planning war you might want to find out something about the Schlieffen plan which was being developed in the 1890s. As to Britain seizing German assets- of course, it would be a bit dim-witted for one belligerent to leave the other belligerent with the means of resourcing and executing their war.
@@martysouth Britain had an obligation with France, not Belgium and the Kaiser's obligation was to keep Russia out of it, not to join the fight with Austria.
@@rosesprog1722 Your gaps in knowledge are remarkable, how could you not know about the treaty of London that made the UK obligated to defend Belgium neutrality?
@@williamthebonquerer9181 The settlement of the Belgian question was the first test for Palmerston on becoming foreign secretary in Lord Grey's administration. Belgium, previously the "Austrian Netherlands", had been united with Holland in 1815 to form a barrier to French expansion, but had rebelled in August 1830 and declared itself independent. Under threat from the Dutch, the Belgians looked to France for assistance, provoking British fears of renewed French aggrandizement. A conference of the great powers in London in February 1831 recognized Belgian independence and, when the Dutch refused to submit, French troops marched in. When they proved reluctant to leave, Palmerston dropped hints of war. By the treaty of November 1831 Belgian independence and neutrality were guaranteed but the Dutch refused to accept that until 1839 when a second treaty of London repeated the assurances but not the guarantees. In the treaty of 1831 there was indeed an article guaranteeing the execution, by force if necessary of all previous articles to the King of the Belgians but in the 1839 treaty which superseded the first and on which the independence of Belgium was now said to rest, Lord Palmerston omitted any such guarantee. Given the lack of precision as to the nature of the guarantee in 1831 and 1839, interpretations of the obligations imposed varied during the years of Belgian neutrality until 1914. Although Belgium held to its neutral status, there were exceptions. In the Franco-Prussian war, for example the British were more than happy to allow Prussian passage into Belgium if it served a French defeat. Continued...
So, in the treaty of 1831 there was indeed an article guaranteeing the execution, by force if necessary of all previous articles to the King of the Belgians but in the 1839 version, which superseded the first and on which the independence of Belgium was now said to rest, Lord Palmerston omitted any such guarantee. There was, therefore, no English guarantee to Belgium. It is possible, perhaps, to "construct" such a guarantee; but the case may be summed up as follows: England is under no guarantee whatever except as is common to Austria, France, Russia, and Germany but that created guarantee was not even specifically about the protection of the neutrality of Belgium. It does tell Belgium that it is bound to remain neutral to perpetuity and that the rest of Europe recognizes that but it is about the Netherlands' insecurities. Therefore, Britain took advantage of the world's poor knowledge of those treaties to affirm a military engagement towards Belgium that had in fact, been nullified in 1839.
Great video. Suggest a follow up that lists the moments that war might have been prevented e.g. when the Serbians had accepted all but one of the principal terms of an Austro-Hungarian ultimatum, Austria might have agreed but they demanded all or nothing. Metternich basically failed to see the consequences and wouldn’t listen to counsel from allies.
I think you may mean Berchtold. And his allies were urging him to go to war. Germany, or at least its generals, wanted a war with Russia (which inevitably meant a war with France as well) before Russian modernization and recovery from its 1905 woes made the France-Russia Entente too strong for Germany to handle.
Austria-Hungary wanted war with Serbia, there was nothing Serbia could do to appease them. No terms were acceptable to the Hapsburgs, only capitulation. What was really needed was for Germany and Russia to step in and bring AH and S under control, but the Czar and to a lesser extent the Kaiser were weak and easily manipulated.
@@brucetucker4847 German generals wanted a war with Russia. Name one General who wanted that and please link a source. The Kaiser sent more than one ultimatum to Russia to stop mobilizing it's troops. In the end they didn't.
@@Ghreinos Von Moltke and Falkenhayn both did. Source for that is David Frompkin, Europe's Last Summer. I don't recall offhand what original source he had for that but he did cite them. They also deliberately interfered with the kaiser's attempts to stop the war, most notably by secretly cabling Conrad von Hotzendorf and telling him to ignore the German civilian government and declare war on Seebua ASAP. Theoretically the generals were under the kaiser but he was an ineffective and weak-willed sovereign and as a practical matter the general staff obeyed no authority but its own.
It is actually a very poor explanation. Its not wrong but just superficial and clichéd. As an example, absolutely no mention of how the timetables of mobilisation (particularly the German's timetable for a two front war) affected decision making during the critical last few days. And much much more. Not that this should be surprising. Trying to give a 10 minute explanation to a very complex issue would always lack substance and insight.
@@graemesydney38 And that almost all nations didn't want to go to war but had to summon their army just in case... I think the problem with this channel is that it focuses a lot on great britain (it is understandable) but i would love for them to give more explanation on the other nations' views
One of the most forgotten aspects of the post WW1 era was the Rhur Crisis. Germany was in the midst of what would become its hyperinflation crisis and was falling behind on payments to France and Belgium as part of the terms of the Treaty of Versaille. The French decided to take matters into their own hands, motivated by fears of a resurgent Germany, and decided to occupy the industrial region of the Rhur Valley. They did this as a means of using raw materials to receive payment if currency didn't work. The problem was, the French government miscalculated. Rather than being supported by their wartime allies, Britain and the United States, the French were condemned as a destabilising influence in Europe. What's more the German government declared a State of Emergency and encouraged people in the Rhur to passively resist the French, making it harder for the French to achieve what they wanted. In the end, the French were forced into a humiliating climb down and all their action in 1923 succeeded in doing was ultimately create the conditions necessary for the Nazis to increase their popularity on a national level in Germany and leading to Germany becoming what the French thought was going to happen in 1923, only leaving France worse off for it
5.23 'Britain drifted closer to france and russia though without forming an alliance'. There was an alliance signed in 1904 between Britain and France. The Entente Cordiale.
@@clouds-rb9xt Personally, I do not see the Imperial War Museum as a museum of England, although that is geographically where it resides. I think this video tries hard to tread a middle ground and not apportion blame to any side, but it should not be taken in isolation as a source because it neglects to mention various treaties that Britain had with European Nations, including but not limited to the Entente Cordiale, which undoubtedly influenced Britain's leaders at that time feel obliged to enter the war.
@@songsandvisions the purpose of studying history isn't to tread a middle ground and avoid apportioning blame. Surely, it is to try to objectively and impartially seek the truth.
All politicians miscalculated each other. The Austrians thought that Russia would stay neutral not realizing it pressured them more because Russia must help a fellow Slav and a test of the prestige for their country which is already downhill because of the lost on the Crimean war and the Russo-Japanese war.
@@johnmassoud930 Majority of Historians even German historians agreed to the Fischer Theory. Fischer himself is a West-German Historian. East German also agreed and even pointed that it was capitalism that cause the war. He said that German politicians, the Kaiser and the Chancellor wanted a war to distract the public because a Socialist Party got majority of the seats in the lower house parliament (Reichstag) and those people does not want high taxes that would be used for military. The Greed of the politicians + the Kaiser cause the war.
There's some nonsense in this. France wasn't threatened by Germany: France had been without allies for decades after the Franco-Prussian War and Germany had done nothing. Germany was not the primary disruptive power in the decade before 1914; it was Britain which reversed a pro-Ottoman and anti-Russian stance, largely to secure access to oil. The clearest sign is the Italo-Turkish War that could not have been launched without British compliance and Italy was actively encouraged by Britain. That war left the Ottomans vulnerable to the Balkan League's attack.
@@brucetucker4847 having military plans is ubiquitous. It's the actions that are significantly: the UK encouraged Italy to attack the Ottomans and refused them a defensive alliance after they coughed up Kuwait. That was a reversal of a century of British policy and gave a green light to the Balkan states and later Russia and France.
Why not mention about Ottoman Empire?? On 31 October 1914, the Ottomans formally entered the war on the side of the Central Powers. Russia declared war on 1 November 1914. The first conflict with Russia was the Bergmann Offensive of the Caucasus Campaign on 2 November 1914.
Hi there, How about continuing with the WW1 theme? Could talk about mobilisation, mentioning the various types of background of the ordinary British soldier, as distinct from the Officer class. Then, with mobilisation there are the pro-war and anti-war groups. The role of women in Britain just before the war would be interesting. What jobs were they doing? Could they vote? Why was the phrase "home by Christmas" used? How patriotic were people back then? After this "setting the scene" there is the story of the "Road to Mon." Mon experienced the first clashes between the BEF and German reconnaissance units. The BEF was rolled back before the gigantic German Army........ And so the story continues. There are many aspects of WW1 which would be worth a mention, eg, submarine warfare, aerial warfare, hospitals, gas warfare, life in the trenches, food in the trenches, trench systems, censorship of letters, life back home, deserters, conscientious objectors, fashion, ration books, espionage, medicine, tanks, I hope this sparks some ideas. It was a really interesting video. Thank you!
Thank you for the thorough yet digestible explanation. I just remember learning in school about the assassination of Franz Ferdinand but that was always such an unsatisfying and over simplistic exclamation
04:57 Part of the narrative about the alliances is incorrect. Germany's alliance with Austria-Hungary (1879) came before France's alliance with Russia (1894)
An excellent book to check out regarding this era is Robert Massies' "Dreadnought". Not given much discussion here is the naval arms race that Germany and Britain engaged in. Tirpitz had decided that Germany needed a fleet comparable to the RN if Germany was ever going to become a world power. This arms race even affected smaller countries like Chile and Brazil, who also had battleships built by Britain for prestige or as a counter to their opponents' ships. Enormous sums were spent chasing superiority. At the end of WWI treaties were enacted to limit the naval forces of major countries. London Conference limited numbers, tonnage etc. These measures were taken because at the time it was realized how much the naval build-up had led the world into war. The naval arms race would have started the war sooner or later without the Archdukes' murder. It was a, if not the, major cause of WWI.
How could the naval arms race between Germany and Britain lead to war when Germany had abandoned this competition already by 1912/13? This was done by German chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg to reduce tensions with Britain. That the naval arms race was a contributing factor I do not doubt, however, it's a monocausal explanation. I have learned that wars are usually caused by a combination of complex causes, not just one factor.
@@elfrad1714 I did not say it was the only cause of the war, only the major one. The naval arms race didn't just involve the Brits and Germans, many smaller countries got caught up in this. Turkey, Brazil, Chile and so on. Germany became Germany late in 19th century, and by then most of the world had been carved up by the major colonial powers -Britain, France, Belgium et al. The Germans were late for the party, and most of the good stuff was taken. Only way to take and keep an overseas colony was through a strong naval presence. Read Massies' book, he covers the broad spectrum of political events pre WWI, not just the naval race. It's a really good read, very well researched. Cheers
Historian Holger H. Herwig, supported also a good deal by Lawrence Sondhaus, has an extremely interesting and well beefed up thesis, about German naval armament. Herwig points out that, Germany started to build a world class fleet before Tirpitz and its chief rival was United States, not Britain. Germany and USA were at loggerheads over mastery of the Pacific and influence over unstable South American republics such as Venezuella. In 1898, during the Spanish-American War, German East Asia Squadron and Adm. Dewey's US Asiatic Fleet had even come to the brink of actual combat due to German machinations to take over Philippines from the defeated Spain before Americans could land an army to the disputed archipelago. Herwig has found strong evidence and actual German war plans in German archives against USA for a massive naval conflict, which involved the Boston's (financial nerve center) bombardment and destruction from the sea, similar destruction of New York's and Norfolk's naval bases and finally a landing and occupation of Washington DC. Anglophobic Tirpitz did actually not initiate the German naval build-up, Herwig argues, but rather took over an existing expansion plan and twisted it to an anti-British direction. He had his way largely thanks to a combination of the Kaiser's own familial complexes and heavy handed British treatment of the German commerce in Africa and in the Indian Ocean. The rest of course, is well known.
@@paulx7540 Yes he is. Another great read from him is the follow on volume from 'Dreadnought' titled 'Castles of Steel'. If you've not read this, I highly recommend it. His biography of the Romanovs is very good also. Cheers
A bit Anglo centric perspective presented here. Not sure I heard much mention of the Astro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia, which was accepted for the most part, except one point, by Serbia, but Austria went forward to commence hostilities, declaring war on August 1st. Nor mention of the possibility that Russia didn't want to back down in a German/Austria confrontation with Serbia like back in 1908. Now while France had a treaty with Russia to come to its aid, I believe the Germans preemptively declared war on France on August 3rd before those terms could be invoked, and invaded Belgium on July 28th, after an ultimatum was issued on safe passage on August 2nd. Interestingly enough, Germany cited dubious claims of air incursions as the basis for its declaration of war on France: "The German administrative and military authorities have established a certain number of flagrantly hostile acts committed on German territory by French military aviators.
Several of these have openly violated the neutrality of Belgium by flying over the territory of that country; one has attempted to destroy buildings near Wesel; others have been seen in the district of the Eifel; one has thrown bombs on the railway near Carlsruhe and Nuremberg." The war was still primarily a continental European conflict. And it stemmed from tension and confrontation in the Balkans that brought three monarchies - Germany, Austria-Hungary and Tsarist Russia - into a collision. But a good share of responsibility for that collision can be attributed to Germany and Austria; and expansion to the conflict to Western Europe was the direct result of German actions. If Germany had waited for France to formally announce practical military support for Russia, and refrained from invading Belgium, then the country would have looked much less the aggressor.
Basically Europe went to war because of multiple alliances and everyone wanted to portray his military might. And of course Germany hot the full blame🤣
@@danielrapa8503 well not exactly. France wasn't exactly given the time to exercise their end of the bargain with Russia. And, Belgium was neutral, while Britain didn't have a formal alliance. As for formal alliances, see Italy, which refused to join Germany and Austria-Hungary, saying it wasn't a defensive war (the following year it would actually join the allies). The situation centered on the Balkans between Germany and Austria-Hungary on one side, and Serbia and Russia on the other. That isn't all of Europe. A good chunk, but not all of Europe. And Germany held a good share of blame for escalation of the conflict in the East, and certainly holds the blame for extending the conflict to the West, with invading Belgium and France.
@@danielrapa8503 Germany was expansionist but knew it couldn't take on France and Russia at the same time. Hence the Schlieffen plan developed in the 1890s.
Austro hungary was the furthest thing from the "aggressor" in the first world war. Their demands could be simplified as; Dont commit high espinoge within Austro Hungary. Respect the internationally reconized boarders of Austro Hungary (bosnia). Investigate the former accounts of high espionage within Serbian intelligence and military, againsed Austro Hungary to ensure nothing like this happens again. Prosecute those responsible for the terrorist attacks. And repeal all funding and state sponsored support of terrorist organizations, such as the Black hand, who are operating within Austro Hungary at the behest of the serbian government. Cut all funding for pro seperatists in Austro Hungary. And if those demands arent met, Austro hungarian authorities will investigate Serbian involvement in the destabilization Bosnia and Croatia committed by the Serbian authorities on Serbian land. Serbians response? "we didnt commit espionage, we have investigated ourselves and found ourselves guiltless" (intelligence director who not only started the black hand, but was directly responsible for the overthrow of the former Serbian regime a decade previously had immense power within Serbia and was directly responsible for the state funding of Serbian espionage and treason committers within AH. His name was Dragutin Dimitrijević. Serbia has statues of the terrorist Gavrilo Princip)
This just recycles the same old tired cliches about volotile diplomatic dynamics in Europe. The War had much more to do with colonialism - namely the fact that all of the major European players had been engaged in land-grabs and proxy wars across the globe for almost a century (longer, in some cases). When this reached an impasse - in the midst of which was the high-stakes of economic hegemony in a newly industrial order - the logical next step was a fight on home soil for dominance. This explains the tense diplomatic situation in Europe; not some silly notion of insecurity over who had the best ships. The latter is an effect rather than a cause.
The cause of WW1 was the collapse of the Imperial colonial system. Asia, Europe, and Africa wanted to be rid o the European Empires. The old order represented by Britain, France, and other colonial empires was arranged against the new, rising, economic, nationalist order represented by the colonies and socialism. The imperialist colonizers won and the whole thing had to be refought in WW2 resulting in the disintegration of the European Empires and the search for a new world order which we are still looking for.
Very interesting. I remember this from my History lessons at school, covering the early 20th century. One question: I understood that Italy was allied to France, Britain and Russia (the Allies) during WW1? And Turkey was allied to Germany and Austro-Hungary (the Central Powers?)?
@@pilotjonas8 Italy never entered the war on the side of the Central Powers. It declared itself neutral in 1914, and then in 1915 when both sides were looking for an advantage to break the stalemate Italy essentially solicited secret bids for it to join each side and took the Allied offer. Turkey was not bound to either side by treaties but joined the Central Powers shortly after the war broke out mostly because of its territorial ambitions in the Caucasus and its fear of Russia and of British imperialism. Russia had always coveted Constantinople and free access to the Mediterranean from the Black Sea. Churchill (who was First Lord of the Admiralty) didn't help matters when he confiscated a top-of-the-line battlecruiser being built for the Turkish Navy in Britain which had already been paid for by the Turks. The Germans responded by offering to give the Turks a German battlecruiser (which was already at sea when the war broke out) in compensation if they'd join the Central Powers.
Britain had a hand in the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand. The British Intelligence Community was in cahoots with the Serbian Intelligence Community. so the saying goes and both were invested in provoking Austrian-Hungary.
The Austrians, led by General, Conrad Von Hotzendorf and Foreign Minister , Leopold Von Berchthold started the war . Their determination to have a war at any cost, as a means to restore Austria's postion as a great power and also destroy nationalists movements within the Hapsburg Empire started the chain of events that ultimately dragged Europe into war.
The Austrians only wanted a war with Serbia, though. It was the Germans, specifically the German military leadership, who wanted to turn that local war into a general European war.
@@brucetucker4847 no, many things were to blame. timelines and mobilization were to blame. And it was the russians who wanted a port that did not freeze half the year and specifically mobilized with the intention of backing the serbians because muh orthodoxy and muh slavic language, a convenient excuse to extending into the balkans and meanwhile putting the russian empire back on the map and in working order. But of course "historian" is not capable of seeing that, she's a complete failure. You also had france, wanting the border region it had lost to germany in the franco-prussian war, which just so happened to correspond with coal and steel out the wazzooo, which germany could certainly spare as it had steel and coal in many other places. But of course that wasn't all that france wanted, france wanted control of the Ruhr as well as the Saar, and this dates back to the "boo hoo we got cheated with this treaty, napoleon conquered everything and we want a bigger france" movement that came to a forefront when Napoleon III tried to invade German Europe specifically for that purpose, just as Napoleon I had invaded German Europe. Of course, I can't blame you for not knowing that. This video sucks. She wants to talk about women voting, like that was even a remote issue even relevant to the topic. And like Britain was really "torn" about whether to pound Europe into the sand again. Guarantee this "historian" has not even heard of the Milner group. Did you know that they proposed sinking the Lusitania just so that they could get the US in this mess and run out like bandits? And by that, I mean with their asbestos and diamond mine operations in Africa, using what was just short of slave labor, so that the German currency, and all other European currencies, would just be a worthless pile of dung by the time UK was done watching Europe destroy itself - just like in the Napoleonic Era, as UK's bankers had funded both sides. I hate the UK and I hate this stupid woman who wants to try to teach "history". You want history? Start by watching World War I Conspiracy.
europe wasn't dragged into this war, the milner group set up a war to destroy europe. that's on the uk - because if they can't rule the world, well then it just ought to be destroyed
@@larryhats4320 How exactly do you imagine the so-called Milner Group (which was likely a fantasy created by one pseudo-historian who never provided any sources or other evidence) controlled diplomatic intrigues between the governments in Berlin, Moscow, and Vienna?
@@larryhats4320 The UK was responsible for a number of Wars throughout history, that's undeniable. However, they were definitely not responsible WW1 and WW2 for that matter. Of all the great powers in 1914, the UK was most ill prepared for war and was very reluctant to get involved. Britain's course was only decided after Germany violated Belgian neutrality.
more on Ireland and Northern Ireland would be great, especially northern Irelands contribution to the second world war as I feel we don't hear very much about that.
Amazon video as usual. Just wondering if you can make some explaining the military of each sides in ww1. Like there armies, their navies, their aircrafts, their tactics, their formations, their frontiers(especially the trenches), and the roles of 3rd parties like the Scandinavian countries, Asian countries and south American countries.
Like many wars before it, new technology changed the way war would be fought. But the leadership had to figure that out as they went. Artillery, machine guns on land, torpedoes and submarines at sea and aircraft for both, though more on land at the time, made the old way of war obsolete.
Many thanks. How do the respective participants pay for the war? Is it taxes, borrowing or a combination? And, where did that money come from? The rich, the colonies? And what were the societal consequences?
A combination. The Allies borrowed huge sums of money from the US as well as buying massive amounts of munitions on credit. This is a major reason why the US became increasingly pro-Allied as the war went on: an Allied loss would mean those debts would likely never be repaid, and that would have been catastrophic for the American economy.
I highly recommend a book called The Darkest Day’s A small clique in Government inc Churchill Grey and Asquith manoeuvred Britain into Russian German War centred on the Balkans The consequences of getting involved in that Stupidity ruined not only Britain but Europe forever
Franc Ferdinand was assassinated by the organization called Young Bosnia that was backed by secret organization called Black Hand. Powerful people from the Serbian military helped a young Bosnian activist to cross border and provided him with a pistol and ammunition. Bosnia was under the old school Austrian empire which was opresing the various parts of what in the future will became a Yugoslavia. We can't talk about act that was planned and orchestrated by the Serbian state. Austria declared the war to Serbia for the reason that they were not allowed to interfere in Serbian internal investigation. Anyway during the war Austria commited atrocities against Serbian population and 10 percent of whole population was killed during the conflict.
Imperial Germany was doomed the day that Kaiser Wilhelm II signed an alliance with Austria-Hungary. Bismarck warned him not to (as he had warned the Kaiser's father, but not only did Wilhelm ignore him, he sacked Bismarck. Bismarck knew very well that Austria-Hungary was decaying and it would be a dead weight, indeed a dead albatross around Germany's neck. The most obvious country for Germany to have had an alliance with...was Great Britain! The headstrong Kaiser though had it in for Britain for personal reasons, not the least that his teenage mother (who was Queen Victoria's eldest child Princess Victoria) had difficulties with his birth leaving him with a life-long withered left arm. Yet the Kaiser doted on Queen Victoria and was present at her bedside at her death. Interesting to consider how history might have changed if the succession had gone to Victoria's eldest child instead of (as per the rule then) her eldest son.
If Princess Victoria had been the heir to the throne, she almost certainly would have been made to give up that claim when she married the heir to the German throne. Personal unions of monarchies of first-rate powers had always been seen as a major threat to stability in Europe.
@@brucetucker4847 If Princess Victoria actually had been heir to the British throne, it is VERY unlikely she would have been married off to a heir of the German Imperial throne. In the 19th Century, royal marriages were more or less arranged between the parents, and the bride and groom didn't have a lot of say in the choice. It was "duty" after all! Queen Victoria would almost certainly have found someone within Britain for Princess Victoria to marry. Of course, the idea of "royal duty before romance" continued well into the 20th Century; consider Princess Margaret being made to give up Peter Townsend. Today, she would have been given permission by The Queen to marry him (but note she would still need permission).
The War was always centred on the East A lot of the blame must fall on Austria Hungary but mostly Austria (Elite not people)for pushing into the Balkans The Kaiser was a fool for tying Germany Austria. And Britain was foolish for joining in.
@@ktipuss Bismarck made no such remark he preferred a flexible policy he didn't want an alliance with Britian cus he knew he couldn't cus the UK was in splendid isolation making zero commitments to any European nation
The Kaiser caused the war. The German constitution was at fault. It afforded the Kaiser executive power. An aggressive militarist megalomaniac controls Germany. What happens next? Yours is a nice point about Princess Victoria.
Just one correction for the people not familiar with the legal background of the start of WW1: Bosnia and Herzegovina was a colony of Austro-Hungarian empire. However, not a legal one. In 1878, at the Congress of Berlin Austro-Hungarian empire "got" a concession on Bosnia and Herzegovina for 25 years. In 1903, Austria unilaterally extended this concession indefinitely. "Unilaterally" in international law means: illegally, done by one party, without any agreement or treaty. Thus since 1903, Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a "legal colony" of Austro Hungarian empire. So under the international law, the local population has the right to rebel against the foreign occupation. So under the international law, the Serbian Gavrilo Princip is not a terrorist, and can not be accused for acts of terrorism in a court. Fun fact 2: Gavrilo Princip was not a citizen of Principality of Serbia, thus Austro Hungarian empire had no legal grounds to occupy Serbia. He, of course got help from the the military personnel of Principality of Serbia, but you can imagine how difficult it would be to prove that in the court at the beginning of 20th century. Just to give you an example, of what kind of international law breach this was: Kamala Harris is of Indian decent, but born in USA. Imagine she assasinates the president of USA Biden. Because of this USA invades India.
According to the Book “Contemporary World History by Norman Lowe. This is word by word The German Kaiser restrained the Austrians from declaring war on Serbia in 1913 but in 1914 encouraged them to go ahead. The Kaiser sent them a telegram urging them to attack Serbia and promising German help without any conditions attached. This was like giving Austrians a blank cheque to do whatever they wanted. The important question is: Why did the German policy towards Austria-Hungary change? This question has caused great controversy among historians, and several different interpretations have been put forward
The narrator's claim at about 1:15 that Britain had not fought a war on the European continent since 1815 is not true. The UK, France and Russia had fought the Crimean war much later. Crimea is in Europe.
Raymond Poincaré. Poincaré visited Petrograd in July 1914. He and the Tsar agreed to go to war. Russia was first to mobilize their troops, France lied.
By a Serbian backed terrorist Can I please see the source of your information saying that the Kingdom of Serbia backed the attack. A Serbian- who was member of a secret society opposed to the Austro-Hungarian Empire- committed the assassination, certainly, but wheres the evidence that the Kingdom of Serbia was behind it?
It's the Narrative they like to use nowadays fact is Bosnian Movement that consists of Serbian Bosnians and others. They also always forget that Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia after the People in the Region fought for Freedom and kicked the Ottomans out. So why change one Master for another? Of course, the People will fight for their Freedom.
I like how you frame it in '1 out of every 4 people on Earth owe their allegiance to the crown' while trying to tell a story about anarchists. Well done.
A further point is that I cannot support the actions of colonialism or authoritarian rule whether it is socialist based or imperialist. In character.. as often is the case rather than not there were powerful forces that pushed for war as a matter of national & self-interest..on all sides there was a spoils mentality..
Germany hesistated for quite a while before fulfilling their commitments to their Austrian-Hungarian allies, but then certain powers pushed (mainly energy sector interest)
@manyulgarprsch 👍 the German foreign ministry had its doubts and warned of a possible world war but was then overruled, you can for example search for Gerry Dochertys books , there is loads of information about the powers that pushed and prolonged the war.
@@kuntakinte2290 It seems the expectation was Russia will stand down again as it wasn't ready. In the last days before the war events spiraled out of control and there was no way to stop it.
A better title for this video would have been "The thing is, the way I see it these days there is a war on, right? And ages ago there wasn't a war on, right? So there must have been a moment when there not being a war on went away, right? And there being a war on came along. So what I wanna know is: How did we get from the one case of affairs to the other case of affairs."
The Russian Tsar bears the greatest single responsibility. Had he told the Serbs they were on their own, the Serbs would have either caved to Vienna or the "world war" would have been just a minor Austro-Serbian brawl. The Tsar should have learned his lesson from the war with Japan, which ended in defeat and a revolution. Fittingly he was the one key ruler who perished in the war.
The problem was that all the powers had plans to get their armies to the borders but no plan to de-escalate and return to their camps inside their borders away from the "front line". And then some-one started with an accidental incident that triggered everyone else to start shooting. ALP Taylor blamed the raiiway schedules which allowed one way traffic at the borders. Of course everything was made harder by the lack of fast communication and diplomatic mire.
the british were allies to the russians and the french and all three of them were afraid of a german ruled powerhouse in the center of europe. they wanted to keep their empires and colonies. thats why they decided to take action in there own hands and murdred the heir to the throne. and therefore war was inevitable. a two front war germany only could lose. what they not foresaw was the revolution in russia.
Not really. It was the German Kaiser that is afraid. Britain got the strongest navy and Russia with huge army. Majority of historians even German historians agreed that German leaders especially those militarists on the Reichstag provoked a war. This is according to Contemporary World History by David Lowe In 1967 a German Historian Fritz Fischer suggested that Germany should after all take most of the blame, because they risked a major war by sending the blank cheque to Austria-Hungary. He claimed that Germany deliberately planned for, and provoked war with Russia, Britain and France in order to make Germany the dominant power in the world, both economically and politically, and also as a WAY OF DEALING WITH DOMESTIC TENSIONS. In the elections of 1912, the Germans Socialist Party (SPD) won over a third of the seats in the Reichstag (lower house parliament), making it the largest single party. Then in January 1914, the Reichstag passed a vote for no confidence in Chancellor, Bethman Hollweg, but he remained in the office because the Kaiser had the final say. Obviously, a major clash was on the way between the Reichstag, which wanted more power, and the Kaiser and the Chancellor, who were determined to resist change. A victorious war seemed a good way of keeping people’s mind off the political problems; it would enable the government to suppress the SPD and keep power in the hands of the Kaiser and Aristocracy. Fischer based his theory partly on evidence from the diary of Admiral von Müller, who wrote about a ‘war council’ held on 8 December 1912; at this meeting, Moltke (Chief of the German General Staff) said: “I BELIEVE WAR IS UNAVOIDABLE; WAR THE SOONER THE BETTER”
Surely Germany's failue to renew the treaty with Russia was a major cause? It allowed France to ally with Russia (unexpectedl, I admit), left Germany feeling surrounded and so indirectly led to the Schlieffen Plan which was bound to bring Britain into the war (not a problem in a short war but disastrous if Germany didn't get a quick win). Any thoughts?
There you have it....the Germans were itching for a war but did not want to be seen as the instigator. They pushed Austria Hungary into retaliation. Then when the German Navy was ready......
Another important factor missing is the decline of the Ottoman Empire created a power vacuum in the Balkans which the Austro-Hungarians and Russia vied for influence and control while the British and the Russians butted heads on what to do with the Ottoman Empire. While Germany itself wanted to preserve the Empire against the Russians. German Empire also increases its influence in the Ottoman Empire with the Baghdad railway and the British believed their control of the Suez was under threat and their control of the Persian gulf.
Didn't mention the dreadnaught race between Turkey and Greece or how the Italian war in Libya in 1911 led to the destablisation of the Balkans
Many British people don't understand, and never have understood, a Russian viewpoint of history! What Russia has really watched and seen going on throughout history? It's actually quite amusing...
France takes Algeria from Turkey, and almost every year, England annexes another Indian principality. None of this disturbs the balance of power in Europe, but when Russia occupies Moldavia and Wallachia, (albeit only temporarily), that disturbs the balance of power in Europe. LMAO
France occupies Rome, and stays there several years (during peacetime) refusing to leave, that's just nothing, but Russia only thinks of occupying Constantinople, and the peace of Europe is threatened. LOL.
The English declare war on the Chinese, (who have, it seems, offended them, LOL), no one has the right to intervene, speak, or even ask a question, but Russia is obliged to ask Europe for permission, if it quarrels with its neighbour? LMAO.
England threatens Greece, to support the false claims of a miserable Jew, LOL, and burns the entire Greek fleet hahaha oops, that is a lawful action, LMAO, but Russia demands a treaty to protect millions of Christians, and that is deemed to strengthen Russia's position in the East, and of course, at the expense of the balance of power in Europe! LOL.
Russia can expect nothing from the West, but blind hatred, and malice. History is never, just black and white. LOL. So much British history can be explained by Britain's own paranoia of the Russian Empire, and so much Russian history can be explained by Russia's own paranoia of the British Empire.
@@StoutProper Killing of Austro Hungarian arch duke was the result of WW1 which was caused by Serbia.
@@hotstepper887 Then Russia was paranoid over German Empire.
@@hotstepper887 Then German had rights to attack Serbia cause Serbia is major reason to start WW1. Arch Duke Ferdinand was innocent but Serbia was paranoid in it right British should had respected German and Austria right to declare war on Serbia.
WWI is still defining the world we live in. The Sykes Picot line, the Balfour Declaration, the rise of the Soviet Union, the rise of post colonial nation states the list never ends
Especially that second one.
@@2070paradigmshift yes but the 2nd one doesn’t make any sense if you don’t understand the first one
*shrugs in China
The photo at 6:08 mark is not that of Princip, the assassin of the Archduke per noted historian, Christopher Clark. In his lectures Clark states the man was another Serb who had been taken for questioning and released.
Quite true - add the rise in US power to your list . However , there have been major events that have occurred since
- After Gorbachev agreed to dismantle the Soviet Union , the US implemented the Wolfowtiz doctrine
- The Neo Colonialism that is occurring in Africa today
- Kissinger, Nixon and Trudeau initiating trade with China - helping to turn it into a super power
- The rise of Britain's Second Empire ( "the Square Mile" banking and offshore islands )
.
Britain had fought a war on the continent of Europe after Waterloo, the Crimean War. Can’t believe they omitted that in the first 2 minutes.
Was just about to comment on this, surprised no one else picked up on it. Honest to god baffled me.
That was such a glaring omission really.
the whole video is an omission to be frank.
Many British people don't understand, and never have understood, a Russian viewpoint of history! What Russia has really watched and seen going on throughout history? It's actually quite amusing...
France takes Algeria from Turkey, and almost every year, England annexes another Indian principality. None of this disturbs the balance of power in Europe, but when Russia occupies Moldavia and Wallachia, (albeit only temporarily), that disturbs the balance of power in Europe. LMAO
France occupies Rome, and stays there several years (during peacetime) refusing to leave, that's just nothing, but Russia only thinks of occupying Constantinople, and the peace of Europe is threatened. LOL.
The English declare war on the Chinese, (who have, it seems, offended them, LOL), no one has the right to intervene, speak, or even ask a question, but Russia is obliged to ask Europe for permission, if it quarrels with its neighbour? LMAO.
England threatens Greece, to support the false claims of a miserable Jew, LOL, and burns the entire Greek fleet hahaha oops, that is a lawful action, LMAO, but Russia demands a treaty to protect millions of Christians, and that is deemed to strengthen Russia's position in the East, and of course, at the expense of the balance of power in Europe! LOL.
Russia can expect nothing from the West, but blind hatred, and malice. History is never, just black and white. LOL. So much British history can be explained by Britain's own paranoia of the Russian Empire, and so much Russian history can be explained by Russia's own paranoia of the British Empire.
@@hotstepper887 you have interesting points but saying “LOL” all the time in all caps really takes away from your message and makes you sound like you are 14.
1870, Britain had 32 percent of the world's manufacturing capacity, but by 1910 Germany had 15.9 percent and Britain had only 14.7 percent. (The U.S. had also boomed, with 35.3 percent.) And Germany, now industrialized, began to develop colonial ambitions, which caused conflicts with Britain, France, and other European countries.
1897 debate in the German Reichstag, its parliament, the foreign secretary stated, "In one word: We wish to throw no one into the shade, but we demand our own place in the sun." The head of the German Empire, Kaiser Wilhelm II, committed himself to making Germany into a global power through aggressive diplomacy and the acquisition of overseas colonies.
One instance of the kaiser's aggressive diplomacy was in North Africa. In 1905, he disembarked from a German warship in the Moroccan port of Tangier and spoke in favor of Moroccan independence. Germany had no real interest in Morocco, but France did. The kaiser's goal was to support the sultan of Morocco and to impress others with Germany's power and prestige.
A conference took place the next year in the Spanish town of Algeciras to discuss issues of international law in the African colonies. But the outcome was not particularly positive for Germany, because Britain voted with France, as did Italy, and only Austria backed the kaiser.
In July 1911, a German gunboat, the Panther, arrived at Agadir, a large city on the Moroccan coast. The Germans stated that they had come to protect Morocco from French troops, which had entered the city of Fez to put down rebels. But Germany's true goal was to get access to territory in the Congo. Negotiations between France and Germany resulted in Germany's obtaining a small parcel of territory in the French Equatorial African colony of Middle Congo - a marshy area where sleeping sickness was widespread.
The kaiser in Germany, jealous of Great Britain's empire, implemented Weltpolitik, "world policy." The aim of Weltpolitikwas to transform Germany into a global power through aggressive diplomacy, the acquisition of overseas colonies, and the development of a large navy. The kaiser believed that Germany's greatness depended on her becoming a naval power. "We have fought for a place in the sun," the kaiser said, and won it. "Our future is on the water." And Britain, which long had enjoyed naval supremacy, became alarmed at Germany's intentions.
From 1902 until war broke out in 1914, the British and Germans engaged in a naval arms race. The British designed a powerful new battleship, the Dreadnought, which it launched in 1906. The Germans immediately copied the Dreadnought, and the British Admiralty decided to maintain as many ships as Germany plus an additional six. The British also redistributed their ships so the biggest and most powerful ships were situated to fight the Germans. The effects of this race put a huge financial burden on both countries. But the naval race continued as the two powers struggled to dominate the seas.
The Russians and Japanese, competing for territory in Korea and Manchuria, went to war in 1904. The Russians also had imperialist goals in Persia and on the borderlands with India, which created tension with Britain. India was part of the British Empire, and the British were also heavily invested in Persia, which it saw as an important source of oil.
1908. Russia was trying, as it had throughout history, to get control of the Turkish Straits (the Bosporus, the Sea of Marmara, and the Dardanelles), which connect the Black and Aegean seas. Control of the straits would give the Russian navy access to the Aegean and the Mediterranean.
August 1, France ordered mobilization, and two hours later Germany declared war on Russia. The final step, which brought Britain into the war, came on August 3 when Germany invaded Belgium and declared war on France. Britain issued a 24-hour ultimatum demanding that Germany withdraw its forces from Belgium. Germany refused, and on August 4, 1914, Germany and Britain were at war.
The Zimmerman Telegraph
"We intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal or alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The settlement in detail is left to you. You will inform the President of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States of America is certain and add the suggestion that he should, on his own initiative, invite Japan to immediate adherence and at the same time mediate between Japan and ourselves. Please call the President's attention to the fact that the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace." Signed, ZIMMERMANN.
THE HAZARDS OF THE UNFORESEEN
World War I was probably history’s worst catastrophe, and U.S. President Woodrow Wilson was substantially responsible for unintended consequences of the war that played out in Germany and Russia, contributing to the rise of totalitarian regimes and another world war. American “isolationism” - armed neutrality would be a more accurate term - developed as a sensible reaction to his policies. After Germany’s initial advances into the Low Countries and France, the adversaries in World War I dug trenches and seldom advanced or retreated much from those lines.
German soldiers were generally outnumbered on the Western Front, but the Germans had smarter generals and more guns. The British navy enforced an effective blockade that made it difficult for the Germans to obtain many vital supplies, including food. Germany responded by building a submarine fleet, but it didn’t give them a way to invade Britain or the United States. By 1918, the war had been stalemated for more than three years, neither side able to force vindictive terms on the other. One of the last German offensives ground to a halt in the French countryside when German commanders couldn’t prevent their starving soldiers, amazed by the abundance of food, from gorging themselves on cheeses, sausages, and wine.
If the U.S. had stayed out of the war, it seems likely there would have been some kind of negotiated settlement. Neither the Allied Powers (France, Britain, Russia, Italy, Japan, and several smaller states) nor the Central Powers (Germany, Austria‐ Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria) would have gained everything they wanted from a negotiated settlement. Both sides would have complained. But a catastrophe would have been less likely after a negotiated settlement than after vindictive terms were forced on the losers.
The U.S. played a significant military role only during the last six months of the war, but that was enough to change history - for the worse. By entering the war on the side of the French and British, Wilson put them in a position to break the stalemate, win a decisive victory, and - most important - force vindictive surrender terms on the losers.
France in 1870 - a war that France had started. Clemenceau wasn’t to be denied, since most of the fighting during World War I took place on French soil and the French suffered some 6 million casualties. He made sure the Versailles Treaty obligated Germany to pay huge reparations and surrender a long list of assets including coal, trucks, guns, and ships - private property as well as property of the German government.
@@ektouge8700 Excellent summary!
I was teaching a class and asked them this "who started WWI?". One of the boys put his hand up, "it wasn't me, Sir" he said.
I took him to the headmaster and told him what the boy had said. "I know this lad well", said the head, "he's usually a good boy. If he says it wasn't him, I believe him".
🤣🤣🤣👍
student of the year
Hmm, I'm not so sure. School boys can often be deceitful. I'd give him a lie detector test, just to be certain.
To quote a man of the time:
'The thing is: The way I see it, these days there's a war on, right? and, ages ago, there wasn't a war on, right? So, there must have been a moment when there not being a war on went away, right? and there being a war on came along. So, what I want to know is: How did we get from the one case of affairs to the other case of affairs?'
I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.
The real reason was it was just far too much effort not too have a war.
@hognoxious but, this is a sort of a war isn't it?
@hognoxious There was just one tiny flaw in the plan...
The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire-building.
I understood Serbia’s “failure” to meet the Austro-Hungarians’ steep ultimatum (6:23) was because the German general staff pressured them (A-H) to refuse to accept any concession from Serbia, which the Serbians actually wanted to do. In point of fact they didn’t want Serbia to capitulate - that’s why the ultimatum was intentionally so draconian.
This is not a trivial point - it means the war could have been avoided, if the Central Powers had a sincere desire to do so.
This is why modern academia has ironically come round to the immediate post-war conclusion of the 1920s that it was indeed Germany that was the prime mover of the crisis.
If you actually read the ultimatum, you would understand that it was far from "steep". It was basically a demand for serbia to stop committing espinoge within austro Hungary, and bring those responsible for the previous espionage to trial. Serbia didnt "comply". The demand they "complied" was a trial to find those connections with the black hand, (the leader was the highest rank in the the serbian intelegence command) , where the serbians "investigated" themselves, that lasted no more then a week, and basically said they they found themselves completely innocent on all accusations. The war EASILY could have been avoided, had france not been gatekeeping serbian independence and ability to commit terrorists attacks within AH.
Germany was planning to build the Berlin-to-Baghdad railroad. This would have enabled Germany to build an oil pipeline along the right-of-way securing an oil supply for its industrialization and mobilization. Such a railroad would have bypassed Britain's dominance of the seas and made Germany a power in Europe.
Yes, but a single pipeline, in those days, from a fairly limited oilfields in the region that were not even theirs, would not really create that big of an impact. It would have taken decades to complete and still Germany would not be even in the top 5 oil producers. Also, you need to realize that even in WWII, industry of countries still depended on coal, not oil. Coal was the main source of power and for the strategic over-land transport of goods, men and resources. So the Berlin-Baghdad railway was a thing to consider, sure, but it was but a drop in a bucket of reasons.
And Germany was already a power in Europe. Arguably, the biggest one individually. It was the most developed one, for certain. So on the continental Europe, nothing would have changed that much really if the railway is finished.
@@Wustenfuchs109 coal was the main source of power up until the 1950s, slowly being phased out by oil and coal was still (in fact it still is to this day) the main source of electricity.
Sounds like a similar situation to the nord stream pipelines.
Very informative. It shows very well how easily local conflicts can escalate into major wars under the wrong conditions. It's a sobering reminder of how important the current war in Ukraine is, and what could potentially be at stake if global food supplies remain threatened by that conflict.
Absolutely true !! Only God the almighty can save us. Let's pray to the God to save us.
@@dineshsakaria6594 Amen
It could easily happen. Iran North Korea and even China could enter the war on the side of Russia.
@@andrewx7806 you're right but hopefully not. That - would be awful. But you're right, it could happen. Or as is being reported, China could see Ukraine as their trial balloon for invading Taiwan. I certainly pray that doesn't happen.
absolutely. a corrupt European country nominally ruled by an ex-comedian isn't worth another world war. and NATO is an anti-Russian alliance and needs to be disbanded.
Nicely done.
Please continue your coverage of The Great War, as the IWM has access to archival footage and information one cannot find anywhere else.
Such as?
I think you will find that this topic has already been extensively covered by Capt E Blackadder in his groundbreaking work “Why we are here “
Excellent distillation of a very complex period of time. Anyone wishing greater detail should read Barbara Tuchman’s “The Guns of August.”
I suggest The Darkest Days as well
Followed up with "The Guns of Navarone". Great read.
1914. Margaret Macmillan.
Germany's fleet was never at more than 20% of the Royal Navy, that was used as a pretext only. Sir Edward Grey started negotiating with France in 1906 but didn't tell anyone in parliament until the war had already begun. Britain's first division went to Basra, the Berlin-Baghdad Railway was prevented from completion, Churchill moved the fleet in position before the war, which was forbidden, Britain seized all German colonies as soon as war was declared, Britain had no obligations towards Belgium. By secretly aligning with France, Russia AND Serbia, Britain clearly demonstrated her intention to crush Germany's fast growing economy, industrial might and to seize all foreign markets. That was also demonstrated by the whole Versailles tragic comedy, particularly by Churchill's ongoing food blockade that starved to death around 700,000 German civilians and the famous guilt clause which was based on the non-sensical assumptions that the Kaiser and his government had planned, provoked, started and had committed war crimes the likes of which no one could imagine when they all knew nothing of the sort was true, that war was all about oil and preserving Britain's supremacy using secret alliances and the means of total destruction rather than by honest and open commercial competition. Germany had nothing to gain from going to war at that time, she was doing better than ever before and the Kaiser was perfectly aware that she had everything to lose.
How naive. If Britain had no obligations to Belgium, Germany had none to Austro-Hungary. If Germany hadn't backed them in their absurd demands against Serbia there would have been no war. As to intending or planning war you might want to find out something about the Schlieffen plan which was being developed in the 1890s. As to Britain seizing German assets- of course, it would be a bit dim-witted for one belligerent to leave the other belligerent with the means of resourcing and executing their war.
@@martysouth Britain had an obligation with France, not Belgium and the Kaiser's obligation was to keep Russia out of it, not to join the fight with Austria.
@@rosesprog1722 Your gaps in knowledge are remarkable, how could you not know about the treaty of London that made the UK obligated to defend Belgium neutrality?
@@williamthebonquerer9181
The settlement of the Belgian question was the first test for Palmerston on becoming foreign secretary in Lord Grey's administration. Belgium, previously the "Austrian Netherlands", had been united with Holland in 1815 to form a barrier to French expansion, but had rebelled in August 1830 and declared itself independent. Under threat from the Dutch, the Belgians looked to France for assistance, provoking British fears of renewed French aggrandizement. A conference of the great powers in London in February 1831 recognized Belgian independence and, when the Dutch refused to submit, French troops marched in. When they proved reluctant to leave, Palmerston dropped hints of war. By the treaty of November 1831 Belgian independence and neutrality were guaranteed but the Dutch refused to accept that until 1839 when a second treaty of London repeated the assurances but not the guarantees. In the treaty of 1831 there was indeed an article guaranteeing the execution, by force if necessary of all previous articles to the King of the Belgians but in the 1839 treaty which superseded the first and on which the independence of Belgium was now said to rest, Lord Palmerston omitted any such guarantee.
Given the lack of precision as to the nature of the guarantee in 1831 and 1839, interpretations of the obligations imposed varied during the years of Belgian neutrality until 1914. Although Belgium held to its neutral status, there were exceptions. In the Franco-Prussian war, for example the British were more than happy to allow Prussian passage into Belgium if it served a French defeat. Continued...
So, in the treaty of 1831 there was indeed an article guaranteeing the execution, by force if necessary of all previous articles to the King of the Belgians but in the 1839 version, which superseded the first and on which the independence of Belgium was now said to rest, Lord Palmerston omitted any such guarantee.
There was, therefore, no English guarantee to Belgium. It is possible, perhaps, to "construct" such a guarantee; but the case may be summed up as follows: England is under no guarantee whatever except as is common to Austria, France, Russia, and Germany but that created guarantee was not even specifically about the protection of the neutrality of Belgium. It does tell Belgium that it is bound to remain neutral to perpetuity and that the rest of Europe recognizes that but it is about the Netherlands' insecurities.
Therefore, Britain took advantage of the world's poor knowledge of those treaties to affirm a military engagement towards Belgium that had in fact, been nullified in 1839.
Great video. Suggest a follow up that lists the moments that war might have been prevented e.g. when the Serbians had accepted all but one of the principal terms of an Austro-Hungarian ultimatum, Austria might have agreed but they demanded all or nothing. Metternich basically failed to see the consequences and wouldn’t listen to counsel from allies.
Metternich? Metternich died in 1859.
I think you may mean Berchtold. And his allies were urging him to go to war. Germany, or at least its generals, wanted a war with Russia (which inevitably meant a war with France as well) before Russian modernization and recovery from its 1905 woes made the France-Russia Entente too strong for Germany to handle.
Austria-Hungary wanted war with Serbia, there was nothing Serbia could do to appease them. No terms were acceptable to the Hapsburgs, only capitulation. What was really needed was for Germany and Russia to step in and bring AH and S under control, but the Czar and to a lesser extent the Kaiser were weak and easily manipulated.
@@brucetucker4847 German generals wanted a war with Russia.
Name one General who wanted that and please link a source.
The Kaiser sent more than one ultimatum to Russia to stop mobilizing it's troops. In the end they didn't.
@@Ghreinos Von Moltke and Falkenhayn both did. Source for that is David Frompkin, Europe's Last Summer. I don't recall offhand what original source he had for that but he did cite them. They also deliberately interfered with the kaiser's attempts to stop the war, most notably by secretly cabling Conrad von Hotzendorf and telling him to ignore the German civilian government and declare war on Seebua ASAP. Theoretically the generals were under the kaiser but he was an ineffective and weak-willed sovereign and as a practical matter the general staff obeyed no authority but its own.
didn't fight a war in Europe since Napoleon ?! What about Crimea?
Very interesting and easy to understand. Thank you!
It is actually a very poor explanation. Its not wrong but just superficial and clichéd. As an example, absolutely no mention of how the timetables of mobilisation (particularly the German's timetable for a two front war) affected decision making during the critical last few days. And much much more. Not that this should be surprising. Trying to give a 10 minute explanation to a very complex issue would always lack substance and insight.
@@graemesydney38 And that almost all nations didn't want to go to war but had to summon their army just in case... I think the problem with this channel is that it focuses a lot on great britain (it is understandable) but i would love for them to give more explanation on the other nations' views
Great video. This is exactly where we are now! History will repeat itself
You are dead
One of the most forgotten aspects of the post WW1 era was the Rhur Crisis. Germany was in the midst of what would become its hyperinflation crisis and was falling behind on payments to France and Belgium as part of the terms of the Treaty of Versaille. The French decided to take matters into their own hands, motivated by fears of a resurgent Germany, and decided to occupy the industrial region of the Rhur Valley. They did this as a means of using raw materials to receive payment if currency didn't work.
The problem was, the French government miscalculated. Rather than being supported by their wartime allies, Britain and the United States, the French were condemned as a destabilising influence in Europe. What's more the German government declared a State of Emergency and encouraged people in the Rhur to passively resist the French, making it harder for the French to achieve what they wanted.
In the end, the French were forced into a humiliating climb down and all their action in 1923 succeeded in doing was ultimately create the conditions necessary for the Nazis to increase their popularity on a national level in Germany and leading to Germany becoming what the French thought was going to happen in 1923, only leaving France worse off for it
fax
You are talkning of after WW1 not why it started?
5.23 'Britain drifted closer to france and russia though without forming an alliance'. There was an alliance signed in 1904 between Britain and France. The Entente Cordiale.
@@clouds-rb9xt Personally, I do not see the Imperial War Museum as a museum of England, although that is geographically where it resides. I think this video tries hard to tread a middle ground and not apportion blame to any side, but it should not be taken in isolation as a source because it neglects to mention various treaties that Britain had with European Nations, including but not limited to the Entente Cordiale, which undoubtedly influenced Britain's leaders at that time feel obliged to enter the war.
@@songsandvisions the purpose of studying history isn't to tread a middle ground and avoid apportioning blame. Surely, it is to try to objectively and impartially seek the truth.
I'm very pleased you donst simple say Germany started the war.
Austria Hungary did that. Not Germany
All politicians miscalculated each other. The Austrians thought that Russia would stay neutral not realizing it pressured them more because Russia must help a fellow Slav and a test of the prestige for their country which is already downhill because of the lost on the Crimean war and the Russo-Japanese war.
@@johnmassoud930 Majority of Historians even German historians agreed to the Fischer Theory. Fischer himself is a West-German Historian. East German also agreed and even pointed that it was capitalism that cause the war. He said that German politicians, the Kaiser and the Chancellor wanted a war to distract the public because a Socialist Party got majority of the seats in the lower house parliament (Reichstag) and those people does not want high taxes that would be used for military. The Greed of the politicians + the Kaiser cause the war.
@@scoobydoo8952 it seems that Serbia started the war, and the alliances did the rest.
@@johnmassoud930
No, Serbia started the war.
"Archduke Ferdinand found alive! - World War One a mistake!" - Spike Milligan
Im attempting to write an essay on this topic and im soooo glad this video exists!! Thankyou imperial war museums!!!!
This is a fantastic summary.
@Imperial War Museums - excellent video!
There's some nonsense in this. France wasn't threatened by Germany: France had been without allies for decades after the Franco-Prussian War and Germany had done nothing.
Germany was not the primary disruptive power in the decade before 1914; it was Britain which reversed a pro-Ottoman and anti-Russian stance, largely to secure access to oil.
The clearest sign is the Italo-Turkish War that could not have been launched without British compliance and Italy was actively encouraged by Britain.
That war left the Ottomans vulnerable to the Balkan League's attack.
A Mr. Schlieffen is here and would like to speak to you about German plans regarding France.
@@brucetucker4847 he might like to look here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_XVII
@@johnrohde5510 Yes, they both had plans to invade each other, that's the point.
@@brucetucker4847 having military plans is ubiquitous. It's the actions that are significantly: the UK encouraged Italy to attack the Ottomans and refused them a defensive alliance after they coughed up Kuwait. That was a reversal of a century of British policy and gave a green light to the Balkan states and later Russia and France.
Why not mention about Ottoman Empire?? On 31 October 1914, the Ottomans formally entered the war on the side of the Central Powers. Russia declared war on 1 November 1914. The first conflict with Russia was the Bergmann Offensive of the Caucasus Campaign on 2 November 1914.
Hi there, How about continuing with the WW1 theme? Could talk about mobilisation, mentioning the various types of background of the ordinary British soldier, as distinct from the Officer class. Then, with mobilisation there are the pro-war and anti-war groups. The role of women in Britain just before the war would be interesting. What jobs were they doing? Could they vote? Why was the phrase "home by Christmas" used? How patriotic were people back then? After this "setting the scene" there is the story of the "Road to Mon." Mon experienced the first clashes between the BEF and German reconnaissance units. The BEF was rolled back before the gigantic German Army........ And so the story continues. There are many aspects of WW1 which would be worth a mention, eg, submarine warfare, aerial warfare, hospitals, gas warfare, life in the trenches, food in the trenches, trench systems, censorship of letters, life back home, deserters, conscientious objectors, fashion, ration books, espionage, medicine, tanks, I hope this sparks some ideas. It was a really interesting video. Thank you!
So many great ideas here, thanks! Some of these are answered in previous videos so be sure to check the IWM Stories playlist!
And Canada and the other nations of the Empire were also involved since Britain declared war on behalf of the Empire, not just the United Kingdom.
As an adult this war is fascinating to me. Idk why we didn’t hardly learn anything about it in public school.,
The music at the end, what's it called? 6:43 to be exact.
Im Canadian my ancestors from Punjab. I never paid any allegance to britian and never will.
Uh yeah, because there is no British Empire anymore. No Canadians pledge allegiance to Britain anymore.
@@sj9367 which Punjab?
Of course you aren't, smelly panjeet
Very detailed and at the same time briefly explained.
I love how the brits will shift blame from their colonialism and arrogance to ANYONE else.
EXACTLY
British colonialism caused WW1? How so?
@@martysouth German was a threat to british power, so british started the war to cripple German
Thank you for the thorough yet digestible explanation. I just remember learning in school about the assassination of Franz Ferdinand but that was always such an unsatisfying and over simplistic exclamation
Nice video
This is the best, straight to the point.
04:57 Part of the narrative about the alliances is incorrect. Germany's alliance with Austria-Hungary (1879) came before France's alliance with Russia (1894)
This is excellent, thank you for this video!
Big thank you on this Info :)
As usual for videos on this channel very interesting and no waffle or going off on tangents.
An excellent book to check out regarding this era is Robert Massies' "Dreadnought". Not given much discussion here is the naval arms race that Germany and Britain engaged in. Tirpitz had decided that Germany needed a fleet comparable to the RN if Germany was ever going to become a world power. This arms race even affected smaller countries like Chile and Brazil, who also had battleships built by Britain for prestige or as a counter to their opponents' ships. Enormous sums were spent chasing superiority. At the end of WWI treaties were enacted to limit the naval forces of major countries. London Conference limited numbers, tonnage etc. These measures were taken because at the time it was realized how much the naval build-up had led the world into war. The naval arms race would have started the war sooner or later without the Archdukes' murder. It was a, if not the, major cause of WWI.
How could the naval arms race between Germany and Britain lead to war when Germany had abandoned this competition already by 1912/13? This was done by German chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg to reduce tensions with Britain. That the naval arms race was a contributing factor I do not doubt, however, it's a monocausal explanation. I have learned that wars are usually caused by a combination of complex causes, not just one factor.
@@elfrad1714 I did not say it was the only cause of the war, only the major one. The naval arms race didn't just involve the Brits and Germans, many smaller countries got caught up in this. Turkey, Brazil, Chile and so on. Germany became Germany late in 19th century, and by then most of the world had been carved up by the major colonial powers -Britain, France, Belgium et al. The Germans were late for the party, and most of the good stuff was taken. Only way to take and keep an overseas colony was through a strong naval presence. Read Massies' book, he covers the broad spectrum of political events pre WWI, not just the naval race. It's a really good read, very well researched. Cheers
Historian Holger H. Herwig, supported also a good deal by Lawrence Sondhaus, has an extremely interesting and well beefed up thesis, about German naval armament. Herwig points out that, Germany started to build a world class fleet before Tirpitz and its chief rival was United States, not Britain. Germany and USA were at loggerheads over mastery of the Pacific and influence over unstable South American republics such as Venezuella. In 1898, during the Spanish-American War, German East Asia Squadron and Adm. Dewey's US Asiatic Fleet had even come to the brink of actual combat due to German machinations to take over Philippines from the defeated Spain before Americans could land an army to the disputed archipelago. Herwig has found strong evidence and actual German war plans in German archives against USA for a massive naval conflict, which involved the Boston's (financial nerve center) bombardment and destruction from the sea, similar destruction of New York's and Norfolk's naval bases and finally a landing and occupation of Washington DC. Anglophobic Tirpitz did actually not initiate the German naval build-up, Herwig argues, but rather took over an existing expansion plan and twisted it to an anti-British direction. He had his way largely thanks to a combination of the Kaiser's own familial complexes and heavy handed British treatment of the German commerce in Africa and in the Indian Ocean. The rest of course, is well known.
Agree about . Massie is a master of narrative history.
@@paulx7540 Yes he is. Another great read from him is the follow on volume from 'Dreadnought' titled 'Castles of Steel'. If you've not read this, I highly recommend it. His biography of the Romanovs is very good also. Cheers
Great video!
thx
Britians colonies didn't OWE their allegiance to the empire, they were subjugated.
European colonial competition led to all sides wanting war.
Firstly, Europeans love war. Secondly, they love blaming others.
Nice bite size Doc. Thank you.
A bit Anglo centric perspective presented here. Not sure I heard much mention of the Astro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia, which was accepted for the most part, except one point, by Serbia, but Austria went forward to commence hostilities, declaring war on August 1st. Nor mention of the possibility that Russia didn't want to back down in a German/Austria confrontation with Serbia like back in 1908.
Now while France had a treaty with Russia to come to its aid, I believe the Germans preemptively declared war on France on August 3rd before those terms could be invoked, and invaded Belgium on July 28th, after an ultimatum was issued on safe passage on August 2nd.
Interestingly enough, Germany cited dubious claims of air incursions as the basis for its declaration of war on France: "The German administrative and military authorities have established a certain number of flagrantly hostile acts committed on German territory by French military aviators.
Several of these have openly violated the neutrality of Belgium by flying over the territory of that country; one has attempted to destroy buildings near Wesel; others have been seen in the district of the Eifel; one has thrown bombs on the railway near Carlsruhe and Nuremberg."
The war was still primarily a continental European conflict. And it stemmed from tension and confrontation in the Balkans that brought three monarchies - Germany, Austria-Hungary and Tsarist Russia - into a collision. But a good share of responsibility for that collision can be attributed to Germany and Austria; and expansion to the conflict to Western Europe was the direct result of German actions. If Germany had waited for France to formally announce practical military support for Russia, and refrained from invading Belgium, then the country would have looked much less the aggressor.
Basically Europe went to war because of multiple alliances and everyone wanted to portray his military might. And of course Germany hot the full blame🤣
@@danielrapa8503 well not exactly. France wasn't exactly given the time to exercise their end of the bargain with Russia. And, Belgium was neutral, while Britain didn't have a formal alliance. As for formal alliances, see Italy, which refused to join Germany and Austria-Hungary, saying it wasn't a defensive war (the following year it would actually join the allies).
The situation centered on the Balkans between Germany and Austria-Hungary on one side, and Serbia and Russia on the other. That isn't all of Europe. A good chunk, but not all of Europe. And Germany held a good share of blame for escalation of the conflict in the East, and certainly holds the blame for extending the conflict to the West, with invading Belgium and France.
@@danielrapa8503 Germany was expansionist but knew it couldn't take on France and Russia at the same time. Hence the Schlieffen plan developed in the 1890s.
Austro hungary was the furthest thing from the "aggressor" in the first world war. Their demands could be simplified as; Dont commit high espinoge within Austro Hungary. Respect the internationally reconized boarders of Austro Hungary (bosnia). Investigate the former accounts of high espionage within Serbian intelligence and military, againsed Austro Hungary to ensure nothing like this happens again. Prosecute those responsible for the terrorist attacks. And repeal all funding and state sponsored support of terrorist organizations, such as the Black hand, who are operating within Austro Hungary at the behest of the serbian government. Cut all funding for pro seperatists in Austro Hungary. And if those demands arent met, Austro hungarian authorities will investigate Serbian involvement in the destabilization Bosnia and Croatia committed by the Serbian authorities on Serbian land.
Serbians response? "we didnt commit espionage, we have investigated ourselves and found ourselves guiltless"
(intelligence director who not only started the black hand, but was directly responsible for the overthrow of the former Serbian regime a decade previously had immense power within Serbia and was directly responsible for the state funding of Serbian espionage and treason committers within AH. His name was Dragutin Dimitrijević. Serbia has statues of the terrorist Gavrilo Princip)
Thx! Writing like 10 or more pages (the subject is ww1,2 and possibly war thats happening right now), thanks for the info!
Wonderful session. RS. Canada
This just recycles the same old tired cliches about volotile diplomatic dynamics in Europe. The War had much more to do with colonialism - namely the fact that all of the major European players had been engaged in land-grabs and proxy wars across the globe for almost a century (longer, in some cases). When this reached an impasse - in the midst of which was the high-stakes of economic hegemony in a newly industrial order - the logical next step was a fight on home soil for dominance. This explains the tense diplomatic situation in Europe; not some silly notion of insecurity over who had the best ships. The latter is an effect rather than a cause.
The cause of WW1 was the collapse of the Imperial colonial system. Asia, Europe, and Africa wanted to be rid o the European Empires. The old order represented by Britain, France, and other colonial empires was arranged against the new, rising, economic, nationalist order represented by the colonies and socialism. The imperialist colonizers won and the whole thing had to be refought in WW2 resulting in the disintegration of the European Empires and the search for a new world order which we are still looking for.
Amazing simple explanation
Very interesting. I remember this from my History lessons at school, covering the early 20th century. One question: I understood that Italy was allied to France, Britain and Russia (the Allies) during WW1? And Turkey was allied to Germany and Austro-Hungary (the Central Powers?)?
You're right with Turkey, however Italy started the war on the side of the Central powers and later switched.
@@pilotjonas8 Gee, that would never happen again, right?
@@pilotjonas8 Italy never entered the war on the side of the Central Powers. It declared itself neutral in 1914, and then in 1915 when both sides were looking for an advantage to break the stalemate Italy essentially solicited secret bids for it to join each side and took the Allied offer.
Turkey was not bound to either side by treaties but joined the Central Powers shortly after the war broke out mostly because of its territorial ambitions in the Caucasus and its fear of Russia and of British imperialism. Russia had always coveted Constantinople and free access to the Mediterranean from the Black Sea. Churchill (who was First Lord of the Admiralty) didn't help matters when he confiscated a top-of-the-line battlecruiser being built for the Turkish Navy in Britain which had already been paid for by the Turks. The Germans responded by offering to give the Turks a German battlecruiser (which was already at sea when the war broke out) in compensation if they'd join the Central Powers.
Great videos. What music do you use? Can you please list them in the video descriptions
Wow you guys really nailed it like few others. The infographics and explanations were crystal clear.
Thanks James, glad you enjoyed!
It would be better if the video mentioned things like the Entente Cordiale, Three Emperor’s League.
the reason for ww was because countries fighting for resources
Good video
There are mistakes so glaring as to be unwatchable. Example: Britain fought in the Crimea War which was in Europe. Get your facts straight.
Britain may not have fought a war on the European continent, but they were in the Boer war not too long before Ww1.
*Boer
Britain had a hand in the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand. The British Intelligence Community was in cahoots with the Serbian Intelligence Community. so the saying goes and both were invested in provoking Austrian-Hungary.
Citation needed.
Christopher Clarke has written a very good book about this tpoic. According to him every single nation involved in this war is to blame for the war.
Well done. Thank you.
The Austrians, led by General, Conrad Von Hotzendorf and Foreign Minister , Leopold Von Berchthold started the war . Their determination to have a war at any cost, as a means to restore Austria's postion as a great power and also destroy nationalists movements within the Hapsburg Empire started the chain of events that ultimately dragged Europe into war.
The Austrians only wanted a war with Serbia, though. It was the Germans, specifically the German military leadership, who wanted to turn that local war into a general European war.
@@brucetucker4847 no, many things were to blame. timelines and mobilization were to blame. And it was the russians who wanted a port that did not freeze half the year and specifically mobilized with the intention of backing the serbians because muh orthodoxy and muh slavic language, a convenient excuse to extending into the balkans and meanwhile putting the russian empire back on the map and in working order. But of course "historian" is not capable of seeing that, she's a complete failure. You also had france, wanting the border region it had lost to germany in the franco-prussian war, which just so happened to correspond with coal and steel out the wazzooo, which germany could certainly spare as it had steel and coal in many other places. But of course that wasn't all that france wanted, france wanted control of the Ruhr as well as the Saar, and this dates back to the "boo hoo we got cheated with this treaty, napoleon conquered everything and we want a bigger france" movement that came to a forefront when Napoleon III tried to invade German Europe specifically for that purpose, just as Napoleon I had invaded German Europe. Of course, I can't blame you for not knowing that. This video sucks. She wants to talk about women voting, like that was even a remote issue even relevant to the topic. And like Britain was really "torn" about whether to pound Europe into the sand again. Guarantee this "historian" has not even heard of the Milner group. Did you know that they proposed sinking the Lusitania just so that they could get the US in this mess and run out like bandits? And by that, I mean with their asbestos and diamond mine operations in Africa, using what was just short of slave labor, so that the German currency, and all other European currencies, would just be a worthless pile of dung by the time UK was done watching Europe destroy itself - just like in the Napoleonic Era, as UK's bankers had funded both sides. I hate the UK and I hate this stupid woman who wants to try to teach "history". You want history? Start by watching World War I Conspiracy.
europe wasn't dragged into this war, the milner group set up a war to destroy europe. that's on the uk - because if they can't rule the world, well then it just ought to be destroyed
@@larryhats4320 How exactly do you imagine the so-called Milner Group (which was likely a fantasy created by one pseudo-historian who never provided any sources or other evidence) controlled diplomatic intrigues between the governments in Berlin, Moscow, and Vienna?
@@larryhats4320
The UK was responsible for a number of Wars throughout history, that's undeniable. However, they were definitely not responsible WW1 and WW2 for that matter. Of all the great powers in 1914, the UK was most ill prepared for war and was very reluctant to get involved. Britain's course was only decided after Germany violated Belgian neutrality.
Actual reason was a fellow called Archie Duke who shot an ostrich when he was hungry. That poor old ostrich died for nothing.
more on Ireland and Northern Ireland would be great, especially northern Irelands contribution to the second world war as I feel we don't hear very much about that.
Brilliant. Would you consider making a video on the Armenian Genocide? It was in many ways the forerunner to the Holocaust.
@@keremcel1k You surely know that is a lie. Shame on you, you fascist.
We'd know a lot more about the genocide of the Armenians.
If Armenians dominated Hollywood.
You gotta appreciate German resilience.Kicked by the boot on their face yet coming strong than before every time
The real reason was you had a bunch of royals playing army strutting around in military uniforms wearing medals none of them earned.
I heard it started when a bloke called Archy Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry....
Amazon video as usual.
Just wondering if you can make some explaining the military of each sides in ww1.
Like there armies, their navies, their aircrafts, their tactics, their formations, their frontiers(especially the trenches), and the roles of 3rd parties like the Scandinavian countries, Asian countries and south American countries.
Like many wars before it, new technology changed the way war would be fought. But the leadership had to figure that out as they went. Artillery, machine guns on land, torpedoes and submarines at sea and aircraft for both, though more on land at the time, made the old way of war obsolete.
Principe: “The War would’ve started ANYWAY whether or not the assassination took place!”
You know, he’s PROBABLY right about that.
Many thanks. How do the respective participants pay for the war? Is it taxes, borrowing or a combination? And, where did that money come from? The rich, the colonies? And what were the societal consequences?
All of your interesting questions are for another video, or two … or three.
A combination. The Allies borrowed huge sums of money from the US as well as buying massive amounts of munitions on credit. This is a major reason why the US became increasingly pro-Allied as the war went on: an Allied loss would mean those debts would likely never be repaid, and that would have been catastrophic for the American economy.
I highly recommend a book called The Darkest Day’s
A small clique in Government inc Churchill Grey and Asquith manoeuvred Britain into Russian German War centred on the Balkans
The consequences of getting involved in that Stupidity ruined not only Britain but Europe forever
I can see Switzerland sitting there cosily and peacefully right in the midst of all this anarchy...
Franc Ferdinand was assassinated by the organization called Young Bosnia that was backed by secret organization called Black Hand.
Powerful people from the Serbian military helped a young Bosnian activist to cross border and provided him with a pistol and ammunition.
Bosnia was under the old school Austrian empire which was opresing the various parts of what in the future will became a Yugoslavia.
We can't talk about act that was planned and orchestrated by the Serbian state.
Austria declared the war to Serbia for the reason that they were not allowed to interfere in Serbian internal investigation.
Anyway during the war Austria commited atrocities against Serbian population and 10 percent of whole population was killed during the conflict.
Austria Hungary and oppression? The seperate regions were governed independently.
Answer: Humans.
😂😂😂😂 true tho😂😂😂😂
Imperial Germany was doomed the day that Kaiser Wilhelm II signed an alliance with Austria-Hungary. Bismarck warned him not to (as he had warned the Kaiser's father, but not only did Wilhelm ignore him, he sacked Bismarck. Bismarck knew very well that Austria-Hungary was decaying and it would be a dead weight, indeed a dead albatross around Germany's neck.
The most obvious country for Germany to have had an alliance with...was Great Britain! The headstrong Kaiser though had it in for Britain for personal reasons, not the least that his teenage mother (who was Queen Victoria's eldest child Princess Victoria) had difficulties with his birth leaving him with a life-long withered left arm. Yet the Kaiser doted on Queen Victoria and was present at her bedside at her death.
Interesting to consider how history might have changed if the succession had gone to Victoria's eldest child instead of (as per the rule then) her eldest son.
If Princess Victoria had been the heir to the throne, she almost certainly would have been made to give up that claim when she married the heir to the German throne. Personal unions of monarchies of first-rate powers had always been seen as a major threat to stability in Europe.
@@brucetucker4847 If Princess Victoria actually had been heir to the British throne, it is VERY unlikely she would have been married off to a heir of the German Imperial throne. In the 19th Century, royal marriages were more or less arranged between the parents, and the bride and groom didn't have a lot of say in the choice. It was "duty" after all! Queen Victoria would almost certainly have found someone within Britain for Princess Victoria to marry.
Of course, the idea of "royal duty before romance" continued well into the 20th Century; consider Princess Margaret being made to give up Peter Townsend. Today, she would have been given permission by The Queen to marry him (but note she would still need permission).
The War was always centred on the East
A lot of the blame must fall on Austria Hungary but mostly Austria (Elite not people)for pushing into the Balkans
The Kaiser was a fool for tying Germany Austria.
And Britain was foolish for joining in.
@@ktipuss Bismarck made no such remark he preferred a flexible policy he didn't want an alliance with Britian cus he knew he couldn't cus the UK was in splendid isolation making zero commitments to any European nation
The Kaiser caused the war.
The German constitution was at fault. It afforded the Kaiser executive power.
An aggressive militarist megalomaniac controls Germany. What happens next?
Yours is a nice point about Princess Victoria.
Just one correction for the people not familiar with the legal background of the start of WW1:
Bosnia and Herzegovina was a colony of Austro-Hungarian empire.
However, not a legal one.
In 1878, at the Congress of Berlin Austro-Hungarian empire "got" a concession on Bosnia and Herzegovina for 25 years.
In 1903, Austria unilaterally extended this concession indefinitely. "Unilaterally" in international law means: illegally, done by one party, without any agreement or treaty. Thus since 1903, Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a "legal colony" of Austro Hungarian empire. So under the international law, the local population has the right to rebel against the foreign occupation.
So under the international law, the Serbian Gavrilo Princip is not a terrorist, and can not be accused for acts of terrorism in a court.
Fun fact 2: Gavrilo Princip was not a citizen of Principality of Serbia, thus Austro Hungarian empire had no legal grounds to occupy Serbia. He, of course got help from the the military personnel of Principality of Serbia, but you can imagine how difficult it would be to prove that in the court at the beginning of 20th century. Just to give you an example, of what kind of international law breach this was: Kamala Harris is of Indian decent, but born in USA. Imagine she assasinates the president of USA Biden. Because of this USA invades India.
6:20 wrong, germany did NOT encourage austria to attack,punish serbia...in fact kaiser W did efforts to cool things down...
According to the Book “Contemporary World History by Norman Lowe.
This is word by word
The German Kaiser restrained the Austrians from declaring war on Serbia in 1913 but in 1914 encouraged them to go ahead. The Kaiser sent them a telegram urging them to attack Serbia and promising German help without any conditions attached. This was like giving Austrians a blank cheque to do whatever they wanted. The important question is: Why did the German policy towards Austria-Hungary change? This question has caused great controversy among historians, and several different interpretations have been put forward
How did fighting Germany work for the Empire?
The narrator's claim at about 1:15 that Britain had not fought a war on the European continent since 1815 is not true. The UK, France and Russia had fought the Crimean war much later. Crimea is in Europe.
Raymond Poincaré. Poincaré visited Petrograd in July 1914. He and the Tsar agreed to go to war. Russia was first to mobilize their troops, France lied.
By a Serbian backed terrorist
Can I please see the source of your information saying that the Kingdom of Serbia backed the attack.
A Serbian- who was member of a secret society opposed to the Austro-Hungarian Empire- committed the assassination, certainly, but wheres the evidence that the Kingdom of Serbia was behind it?
It's the Narrative they like to use nowadays fact is Bosnian Movement that consists of Serbian Bosnians and others. They also always forget that Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia after the People in the Region fought for Freedom and kicked the Ottomans out. So why change one Master for another? Of course, the People will fight for their Freedom.
How is there no mention of the Schlieffen plan, the Entente Cordiale or Belgian neutrality.
07:55
Facts, blah blah. I'm going with Baldrick's explanation; Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry.
I like how you frame it in '1 out of every 4 people on Earth owe their allegiance to the crown' while trying to tell a story about anarchists. Well done.
A further point is that I cannot support the actions of colonialism or authoritarian rule whether it is socialist based or imperialist. In character.. as often is the case rather than not there were powerful forces that pushed for war as a matter of national & self-interest..on all sides there was a spoils mentality..
Germany hesistated for quite a while before fulfilling their commitments to their Austrian-Hungarian allies, but then certain powers pushed (mainly energy sector interest)
Really? Why? Which energy powers?
@manyulgarprsch 👍 the German foreign ministry had its doubts and warned of a possible world war but was then overruled, you can for example search for Gerry Dochertys books , there is loads of information about the powers that pushed and prolonged the war.
@@kuntakinte2290 It seems the expectation was Russia will stand down again as it wasn't ready. In the last days before the war events spiraled out of control and there was no way to stop it.
I would love to know what the German POWs went through in Russia
A better title for this video would have been "The thing is, the way I see it these days there is a war on, right? And ages ago there wasn't a war on, right? So there must have been a moment when there not being a war on went away, right? And there being a war on came along. So what I wanna know is: How did we get from the one case of affairs to the other case of affairs."
I thought it started because some bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry.
Better than history books fr fr
Any suggestions on a book to read to learn more about this war
The Russian Tsar bears the greatest single responsibility. Had he told the Serbs they were on their own, the Serbs would have either caved to Vienna or the "world war" would have been just a minor Austro-Serbian brawl. The Tsar should have learned his lesson from the war with Japan, which ended in defeat and a revolution. Fittingly he was the one key ruler who perished in the war.
The problem was that all the powers had plans to get their armies to the borders but no plan to de-escalate and return to their camps inside their borders away from the "front line". And then some-one started with an accidental incident that triggered everyone else to start shooting.
ALP Taylor blamed the raiiway schedules which allowed one way traffic at the borders.
Of course everything was made harder by the lack of fast communication and diplomatic mire.
Three or four of the grandchildren of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert squabbling about who has the biggest stick...
You nailed it right there. These WW's were actually family fights between the Royals and then everybody else got pulled in.
Everyone knows it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich cos he was hungry... 🤔
the british were allies to the russians and the french and all three of them were afraid of a german ruled powerhouse in the center of europe. they wanted to keep their empires and colonies. thats why they decided to take action in there own hands and murdred the heir to the throne. and therefore war was inevitable. a two front war germany only could lose. what they not foresaw was the revolution in russia.
Not really. It was the German Kaiser that is afraid. Britain got the strongest navy and Russia with huge army. Majority of historians even German historians agreed that German leaders especially those militarists on the Reichstag provoked a war.
This is according to Contemporary World History by David Lowe
In 1967 a German Historian Fritz Fischer suggested that Germany should after all take most of the blame, because they risked a major war by sending the blank cheque to Austria-Hungary. He claimed that Germany deliberately planned for, and provoked war with Russia, Britain and France in order to make Germany the dominant power in the world, both economically and politically, and also as a WAY OF DEALING WITH DOMESTIC TENSIONS.
In the elections of 1912, the Germans Socialist Party (SPD) won over a third of the seats in the Reichstag (lower house parliament), making it the largest single party. Then in January 1914, the Reichstag passed a vote for no confidence in Chancellor, Bethman Hollweg, but he remained in the office because the Kaiser had the final say. Obviously, a major clash was on the way between the Reichstag, which wanted more power, and the Kaiser and the Chancellor, who were determined to resist change.
A victorious war seemed a good way of keeping people’s mind off the political problems; it would enable the government to suppress the SPD and keep power in the hands of the Kaiser and Aristocracy.
Fischer based his theory partly on evidence from the diary of Admiral von Müller, who wrote about a ‘war council’ held on 8 December 1912; at this meeting, Moltke (Chief of the German General Staff) said: “I BELIEVE WAR IS UNAVOIDABLE; WAR THE SOONER THE BETTER”
In 1914, Britain had one military ally: Japan.
Surely Germany's failue to renew the treaty with Russia was a major cause? It allowed France to ally with Russia (unexpectedl, I admit), left Germany feeling surrounded and so indirectly led to the Schlieffen Plan which was bound to bring Britain into the war (not a problem in a short war but disastrous if Germany didn't get a quick win). Any thoughts?
There you have it....the Germans were itching for a war but did not want to be seen as the instigator. They pushed Austria Hungary into retaliation. Then when the German Navy was ready......
driver of that car was czech, car was from count Harrach - from mountain region of todays Czech Republic ( Krkonose )