💥Play Supremacy 1914 for FREE on PC, iOS or Android: 💥 s1914.onelink.me/TX2k/KingsandGeneral and Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days!
I think technology played a major part. Why would a regional leader in let's say Yemen, Oman, Kuwait, or even Syria want to send $$$ to Constantinople. The ability to arm with modern smokeless gunpowder battle rifles, and raise local armies, made Empires a bit useless. Ethiopia being able to beat away Italy as an example. *until tanks came around* but that was still in the future.
They cleaned the natural inhabitants up out if there and then claimed to be them. Savages of Gimir will never live as peaceful beings. The wake up eating the dead.
At around 12:15 I really like the detail of Norway splitting off from Sweden, even though it has nothing to do with the actual topic at hand (Norway and Sweden were neutral in the 1st World War), it just goes to show the attention to detail which I really appreciate.
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 I know what finland is I just wasn't sure what Finland had to do with it, but yeah they gained their independence in 1918 or 1919 I think.
Can I just say how much I appreciate this channel. So many channels like the take, watchmojo, wisecrack, old college humor and so many others when they getting and hire more people for more regular content it really goes to Shit. But you guys are putting out content that feels like your original stuff just with great polish, you guys are out here putting out rad content multiple times a week. So thank you from the bottom of my heart for staying yourselves. Also want to say you seem to have followed the same track as, first getting into battles and military but quickly falling in love with social and political history which provides the necessary context for the battle. Other channels skip it but you always explain it great
Britain and France: *conquer a combined 1/3 of the Earth* Germany: Can we also get in on this colonisation business? Britain and France: They’re trying to take over the world!!!
@@jasonjason6525 That's simply not true. Germany had no territorial ambitions in Europe prior to the First World War. Only during the war, as a result of the Allied blockade and the two-front war, this became a consideration to improve Germany's strategic position, economic base and security.
Not mention of Austria-Hungary's annexation of Bosnia in 1908 and the Balkan Wars in 1912? Those were the points where WW1 was strengthened and facilitated by the Great Powers (particularly Austria and Russia) over influence in the Balkans.
@@mabusestestament What a stupid thing to say. The Schlieffen plan was nothing special, a simple strategy to win a war. Do you think no other nations created such plans? It was COMMON.
@KubusSc7 It's not a stupid thing to say, it's the truth. Yes it was special. And no, other countries did not have such an infernal plan let alone that they actually put it into practice.
@@mabusestestament WHAT? Do you know why Italy joined in on WW1 AGAINST her allies Germany and Austria? because the Allies convinced them by promising Tyrol. You know why the Ottoman was fighting it's own people? because the brits send Lawrence to destablize that nation, leading a revolution from within. The Allies had such planes and put them into practice. You have no single clue about history. You should now just shut up and retreat with your tail between your legs, kid.
We also can't forget the role that technology had to play in the triggering of this war. The prevailing (and correct) military doctrine of the time was that the first to mobilise would have a huge advantage, since entrenchment was such a powerful defensive move and railroads allowed for the almost immediate reinforcement of a front line. This lead to the great powers mobilising sooner rather than later, not waiting for diplomacy to resolve the situation. If they had have waited, they would have lost a lot of territory early on, which would have been hard to regain. It was called the seminal tragedy because there were so many things which could have prevented it. It was just the right time with the combination of the alliances which had formed across Europe, the technology of the day and the state of world politics. Let's hope we never see its like again.
I disagree alliances had anything to do with it. The Triple Alliance was a defensive pact that was invalidated the moment Austro-Hungary committed to an aggressive action against Serbia. Germany however, choose to get involved with Austro-Hungary despite their alliance in tatters because they wanted a war. Germany made it impossible for diplomacy, regardless of who mobilized. Just because a country has mobilized doesn't mean that country has to be invaded, Switzerland mobilized, the Netherlands mobilized, even Denmark mobilized in response to Germany. Had Russia and France not mobilized, Germany would have declared war on them anyway. And the Entente Cordiale was not even an alliance, rather just a frame of mind, Britain had no legal obligation to get involved (The Royal Navy even admitted they were planning to violate Belgium neutrality), but because Germany was being so aggressive, it almost guaranteed participation by the British. The Germans got it in their head that there would never be a better time for war and expand the German Empire, so regardless of who was allied to who, the world would have been at war.
Its not true that the prevailing doctrine understood the role of cover, the main ideas were the clash of the french and the maneuver of the germans, all of whiwh required extreme speed. But as you can see during the first weeks of the war with massive advances, each belligerent greatly underestimated the role of supply lines and that speed alone cant do everything, as ammunitions lagged behind uncoordinated armies
I was gonna say something about alliances and pieces of domino, however the real reason for ww1 is that everyone was ready for it after years of peace and prosperity. The quote: "You don't know what you've got until it's gone" seems rather fitting.
It was pretty plain that, while mindful of the various alliances, it was by no means ironclad. Also, a lot of the countries were accustomed to colonial combat, where they had clear tech advantages over their opponents, there could have been a feeling that their own countries were invulnerable, so everyone felt like a great war would be easy.
That’s partly true, the British had just fought the boer war which had cost over 22.000 soldiers lives as well as being a horribly expensive public relations nightmare (think a Victorian Vietnam lol) Russia had fought the Russo-Japanese war and been annihilated completely less than a decade before, the ottomans were always at war, the two big countries who felt that way was Germany who had fought there unification wars fifty years earlier as well as the Franco-Prussian War all of which they had won relatively easily giving them a sense of invincibility, and the French which had been building up their military ever since to get revenge, as for Austria Hungary they wanted to conquer Serbia which they thought they could do easily unfortunately the Serbs disagreed lol
Yeah, I think it was bound to happen eventually, with all the alliances going on, the assassination was just the final straw on top of all the tension, and so all of the powers were dragged into the war
Japan is kinda scared of Russia, and you'll never guess who's also scared of Russia : Great Britain. So, they form an alliance to be a little less scared of Russia.
The biggest problem regarding the 'Alliances' precipitating the War wasn't so much that they existed but rather the fact that most of them were secret, hidden and downplayed. Almost every major power went into the War w/ blind spots regarding at least one or two missing facts about their enemies' alliances. If each power had bothered to advertised to one another better before the fact then it'd changed the calculus greatly. This was a lesson learned after WW2 about alliances when they made certain to tell the world about the formation of NATO, etc.
We went even further, we effectively outlawed secret treaties with the UN charter and the Vienna convention of 1969, although some small secret treaties still exist today, the US has had a few revealed over the years mostly to do with its bases aboard. These 2 initiatives have mostly been effective
Not really, the alliances mostly were advertised. That said, some were secret and "behind the bush", and exactly those were problematic and eased the start of the war. One of the most secretive was the Franco-Italian agreement of non-attacking, whereas the same Italy was openly part of the Triple Alliance. So, in the "power match up" the AH and Germans were pretty much secure from the south, and expected Italy to join and help with France. This was one of the reasons to advance into war, as Italy in their opinion would help tip the war into a landslide victory, then after Frances capitulation Russia would pull out too. And the victory terms would not have been horrendous at all! The Germans drafted their wishes in Septemeber papers, in the midst of Schliessen, when all seemed perfect, nothing out of the ordinary, much easier on France than Versailles was in 1919.
"The art of war is the art of deception" - Sun Tzu Nobody will ever sacrifice their people's security for "peace". Who confuse de enemy and captures their commander's mind will archieve victory.
Here, some warm Recommendations: 'Veritasium' and 'Its ok to be smart' for Science. Also just in General many Channels like Krosmo and SciShow. Unbiased Religion-Discussions: 'Genetically Modified Sceptic' and 'Believe it or not'. Unbiased Research incarnated: 'Hbomberguy'. A new angle, truly: 'Cinema Therapy'. Another way to look at stuff: 'Legal Eagle'. Fun in General: Redditor Small Content Creators doing EPIC: 'Pokemon: Banette's Curse' and 'Cliffside' and 'Epithet Erased'. Yes. Yes, this comment was random.
Bismarck's diplomatic situation was beautiful, just deter the idea of war long enough so that France might cool its head. Too bad it fell apart as soon as the King was succeeded.
@@yaz2928 Yeah, he was a diplomatic genius and a pragmatist. If he had never caved in for others, I'm sure things would've been a lot different for him.
@@yaz2928 Nope, not even close to been a mistake. In the greater political scene, that is what most competent would call ''Making a stand''. A bold move to assert position of some power, so you can be at least accepted in future political discussions between major EU powers that you would NEED in order to preserve your newly unified nation, which was kept in shatters for millennia. The only mistake here, in my opinion, was that he didn't loudly negotiated a major alliance with the Russians. For that we can't judge him too harshly due to the situation with the Austro-Hungarians, that were the real ''Sick Man Of Europe''. In fact, if you go a bit back on that and look at the treaty of Berlin that humiliated Bulgaria and pumped the hopes of the Serbians, things could have been a lot different and the major war could have been averted.
UK: I hate you! France: I hate you as well! Germany: Hey guys I'm gonna be a great power you don't mind right? UK: What you say froggy about a Alliances? France: Oui doggy that sounds great
This comes ironically after the AUKUS and the FrankoGreek Mediterranean Entente(with more countries about to step in shortly). Are we living a new 1914?
A great question is how people that can not write proper english, are watching a highly sophisticated english speaking channel. I suggest you do not make the mistake of king Darius. Just take it easy and relax. Peace will be better.
If China invades or attacks Australia then yes, but that is so unlikely why even speculate? The superpowers of the world can profitably keep playing the geopolitical games they have been for decades without resorting to direct hot war scenarios.
@Θ.Σ.Κ.30 The "middle east" as a concept is one we have built up as a zone of conflict and concern for our own reasons, before the invasions after 9/11 there was similar resentments and concerns in place, we were all funding certain organisations to get to certain ends etc. So I could see the so called "proxy wars" going on indefinitely without some kind of instigating event for a larger conflict. Fair concerns though, I really hope you are wrong. I do believe we are heading into another cold war style scenario with all the rhetoric and nationalistic fervour tat has seen a recent rise, but even that doesn't necessarily mean a war, but it does mean a whole lot of jingoism and xenophobia that is yet to come, which is concerning enough really.
Nah because those nations are still quite close allies. The French throwing a fit isn't new and has happened since anglo powers came out as the premiere powers at the end of the second world war. I wouldn't read too deeply into France's current actions regarding the subs.
Good job, except your channel failed to mention that during the July Crisis, French President Poincarre and Czar Nicholas II held a summit in Petrograd (St. Petersburg) to affirm the Franco-Russia Alliance. At the summit, Poincarre and his aides gave Nicholas II a guarantee similar to the infamous “Blanque Cheque” that Germany had offered Austria-Hungary. The point here is that both Austria and Russia could not have made the diplomatic moves they made without support from their strongest allies.
@@PreemL not likely a Franco-German war. More like a war in the Balkans that would stayed local. I personally think Germany wanted the war though. But they didn't want THAT war. They wanted a fast war like the previous one they fought with France. Not a 4 year slog with millions of deaths.
Btw, a great video summarizing how the Great War started, however some points remained unexplained: 1- The first "League of Three Emperors" included German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and Russian Empire. Those three formed an alliance together before all started. However, the peace treaty of Berlin reversed the gains of Russian-Ottoman War of 1877-1878 and this led Russians to leave the Emperors League. Bismarck's reassurance treaty came afterwards, in order to guarantee Russian neutrality over Germans. 2-Bismarck's fall from favour not only related with Wilhelm II's advisors to sack him, but the different political visions of these two opposing each other (Realpolitik vs Weltpolitik). Bismarck was reluctant to make more aggressive moves in order to provoke major European powers to take measures against German Empire and he was very keen to neutralize each and every major European Power against Germany. On the other hand, Wilhelm II began adapting his own "Weltpolitik" vision to his cabinet. Bismarck was strongly opposing this, and this was the major reason of Wilhelm II removing him from the Chancellor position. 3- The fail of renewing the reassurance treaty between Germans & Russians was not only due to Bismarck's extraordinary reputation, but the deliberate choice of Wilhelm II not to renew it. He was more interested to retain close relationship with Austro-Hungarians. Rather than being close friends, Wilhelm & Russian Royal Family were relatives, and Wilhelm thought they will remain neutral due to family ties. 4-Russians diplomatic interactions with France came right afterwards the cancellation of reassurance treaty. The Franco-Russian agreement was not only a political and economical treaty, but a defensive military pact as well. However, this changed right after the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina by Austrians and Balkan Wars. Frenchs realized the strategical importance of Balkans for Russians after the annexation and both decided to support their offensive military operations against Germany and Austro-Hungarians. 5-The finalization of British Splendid Isolation was not directly related to Russo-Japanese incidents. The main reason of British Diplomacy to leave isolation was directly related with German diplomacy and the two events triggered by Germans: Scramble for Africa & Naval build up of Germans. Great Britain was on the verge of ensuring an alliance pact with both parties, but the actions of Germans pushed Britain to prefer Entente Cordiale. 6-The aim of German naval build-up was not for neutralizing the British diplomatic reactions against Germany, but to match British naval might in accordance with Wilhelm II's "Weltpolitik". Wilhelm was very eager to match British naval capabilities to carry his ideals through Africa & Asia, and to challenge British Navy in case of a hostility between them. 7-The two breaking points of "the July Crisis" (events triggered by the assasination of Archiduke Franz Ferdinand) were the stance taken by Austro-Hungarians after they received the answer of their ultimatum against Serbians and the Russian partial mobilization. If Austrians were more logical on the issue (if I'm not remembering wrong, Serbians accepted majority of the ten conditions but rejected one or two), they could still take gains over Serbians. The Russian decision of partial mobilization was the final straw for German side, and in order not to challenge full Russian might, they decided to prepare for war. German infrastructre of railways were much more advanced compared to Russians, and the vital advantage of Germans (together with their military quality) against Russians was this complex and developed logistical structure to maintain a highly effective and quick logistical supply, making them faster to mobilize compared to Russians. Exploiting this advantage was the main reason why Germans decided to mobilize, manning their borders before Russians fully mobilize and avoid getting overwhelmed en masse by Russians. Hope to see more of your WWI videos! French Mutinies of 1917 is an interesting topic ;)
I think this should have started with the Crimean war, since Austria's refusal to aid Russia then is the reason why these two would become hostile. Before that war, it was Austrian policy to be allied to Russia since centuries before, both to prevent an attack's by Prussia, as well as to keep Russian expansion in the Balkans under control. Russia allied itself to Austria to check Prussian expansion. One can imagine how the world would have been different if Austria kept their alliance with the Russians.
That's true. On the other hand, Russia wanted to become to change the balance of power on the Balkans and expected from Austria to support that. Which would have been suicidal for Austria. A war against France and Britain either. So Austria did the most sensitive thing: Tried to achieve a peace without going to war on either side. Of course this has been not appriciated by Russia.
@@ChrisS-ps7mt I wouldn't be so sure that Austria could not have handled France and Britain. Britain, being a maritime power would help France less against mostly landbound Austria than Russia would help the Habsburgs. Also, Austria was prepared and fortified in the west. Note Austria's quadrilateral forts in Lombardy. Form a strategic standpoint, loosing some territory in Italy to a French invasion would be less of a hit, compared to loosing Russia's support against Prussia. In the end, Prussia would attack Austria and eject her from Germany, France and Piedmont would take her Italian possessions, and later Russia would defend Serbia, leading to a chain of events that led to the dissolution her state.
@@andrejparunovic From hindisght you are right. From the time it happened: Worst case: A defeat with unclear consequences (Austria was still shocked from the 1848 revolutions), best case: a victory - and an even stronger Russia which could dominate the balkans... Austria was in a weak position, as it had to fear Prussian and Sardinien involvement as a new Hungaryan uprising. So it had nothing to win, but a lot to loose. More then Russia with its vast territory :)
Austria-Hungary being a multinational empire could not really survive the age of rising nations and nation states. Also, I don't think they would stand a chance against France and Britain. It took them a year to defeat Serbia. Austria-Hungary was doomed either way, just as the Ottomans were.
@@catmate8358 We were talking about the crimean war. In 1914 you are right. The only legitimation for the A-H empire was the emperor by the will of god. That was no longer a valid cause to rule for many people. So Austria "had" to show its strength even more... But I think, if the Central Powers had won a swift victory in 1914, it would not have changed much for A-H. After a short period of victory celebrations, the peoples of the empire, especially the chechs and ruthenians, had wanted more rights after their contribution to the victory.
This is a good overview, and I appreciate the economy of detail used. I would really like to see your take on the Anglo-German arms race in more detail at some point. From an armchair perspective; the British reaction to the threat of the German navy is massive, reshaping the navy from a force designed to occupy the worlds oceans into a gun pointed at the head of Germany, as many far flung squadrons were scrapped and major fleets reduced in order to create the grand fleet. The British agenda in doing this is not taught or really discussed here in Britain, as the culture seems to want to downplay any perception of military aggressiveness on our part. As I said, I would love to see a more thorough take from more professional historians such as yourselves gain a wider recognition.
The thing is, Germany had quite a lot of reasons to build up their fleet because France, for example, had also a strong Navy, just as Russia. So the Germans needed a strong Navy to prevent the other two powers from blockade German trade...
@@felixjohnsens3201 All true. I’m just trying to say that, in Britain, the opinion that the First World War was something of a pointless tragedy that we blundered into is very common, but this idea seemingly runs counter to the actions of (at least) the admiralty and the diplomats who seem to be very focussed on massing force against Germany and peace everywhere else. It seems like an interesting story that is usually glossed over with ‘Tirpitz build a navy. This angered Britain, who punished them severely.’ This is a Channel usually interested in going into detail after all.
@@joshuabanner3675 I'm not sure the common perception in the UK is that Britain "blundered" into the war. The British position has always been that there needs to be a balance of the powers on the continent to safeguard itself. As the UK's economy and military doctrine was based on the fact that it had the most powerful navy then any disruption of that balance in the locality of the British isles would obviously be deemed a threat.
It's pretty obvious really. Britain ruled half the world at the time and would not tolerate any challenge to that rule. They saw Germany as a rising power and a possible challenger and decided to attack before Germany became too strong. This is the root cause of the entente cordiale with France which happened, nota bene, ten years before the war. In other words, the war on Germany was long in planning. Serbia was promised territorial expansions (Bosnia and Croatia) if they managed to start a war, which they did via assassination of Franz Ferdinand. It was very clear that a murder of the heir to the throne would be casus belli for Austria-Hungary and at that point the war became inevitable. Serbia did get the promised territories but at a terrible price not only for themselves but for much of the world. There were many unintended consequences of WWI that Britain did not foresee, like the creation of the Soviet Union, the rise of Hitler and ultimately the loss of the British Empire - the ultimate irony, considering that the very cause of the war was an attempt to preserve it. Now we can all watch in real time the US trying to do the same.
Only the fighting ended in 1918, the war itself didn't end until 1919 with the signing of the treaty of Versailles which was one of the direct causes of the second world war.
Oh snap! We got documentaries on Great War coming! Nice. Hey THE GREAT WAR Channel on RUclips hosted by Indy Neidell and now Alex, is a Superb learning source.
A good synopsis. A couple of pertinent points. The Germans could have held back the Austrians but instead gave them unqualified support in their invasion of Serbia. The other point is Serbia’s response to Austria effectively accepted all terms of the ultimatum but one: it would not accept Austria-Hungary’s participation in any internal inquiry, stating that this would be a violation of the Constitution and of the law of criminal procedure.
I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if Bismarck wasn’t removed from his position, seeing as he was a genius who predicted the Balkans being to cause and went out his way to avoid possibility of two front war
Otto von Bismarck died in 1898 at the age of 83. So he was to old and it doesnt matter that he was removed. The problem was, that Friedrich died after 99 days and his young son, Wilhelm II become king. If Friedrich would have lived 20 years longer, than germany were more "diplomatic".
Bismarck made a serious mistake by not giving Russia and the balkans an appropriate treatment after the russo-turkish war of 1877-1878. Russia and its coalition decisively defeated Turkey yet it yielded little border changes in the region. This soured germany and russia relations, made the balkans even more unstable, and made Turkey believed it will hold on to its european lands permanently all of which had contributions in causing WW1.
“For four hundred years the foreign policy of England has been to oppose the strongest, most aggressive, most dominating Power on the Continent, and particularly to prevent the Low Countries falling in the hands of such a Power.” Winston S. Churchill, Memoires
Interesting thinking about how alliances will once again pull us into World War 3. I say this as an Aussie knowing our future history students will have to study the role of AUKUS in bringing us into WW3
The alternative is you being "peacefully" annexed and occupied by China. Violence isn't inherently good, but sometimes it's necessary to protect yourself and others.
@@CantusTropus Buddy you are 100% right, I've been in war, Vietnam and am disabled. I hate any idea of war but living under Chinese Communism is not an alternative. Being war capable is a viable deterrent to the CCP. No more giving way it doesn't work.
Alliances were supposed to act as deterrence, like the later nuclear deterrent strategies. However, secret alliances, paranoia about mobilisation, incompetent statesmen and misjudgements about how allies would react ultimately meant that this deterrence wasn't enough.
8:50 "threatened by the evergrowing aggresive Germany" You should have provide more context on the German "aggresive" action. It feel like the British just feel threatened by Germany for no reason
It seems like you didn’t watch the full video where it explains exactly why Britain saw Germany as aggressive and a threat. Firstly, the German plan was to build up a large fleet, large enough to challenge Britain so much so that they’d be forced to the negotiating table. That’s a very aggressive move and was deliberately aimed at upsetting the British. Big miscalculation. Secondly, and significantly worse. Germany invaded the lowlands which is Britain’s dangerous flank. Any idiot who has seen British foreign policy over the last four hundred years could see that Britain has tried its best to never let any one power dominate that region. The German leadership were morons to think that by building a huge fleet that could rival Britain’s AND invade the country Britain essentially created to keep itself safe wasn’t going to upset the British. It would be like a bloke walking up to you with a gun and demanding you to get out of the car. It’s very easy to interpret that person as aggressive.
@drunkcatphil9911 True, but the video only revealed the German naval buildup a couple of minutes after the "threatened by German aggressive actions" line. OP's confusion is justified: the non-chronological discussion of events was confusing in this instance. Also, Germany didn't invade the lowlands until WWI, roughly a decade after Britain formed the Entente Cordiale rather than strengthen relations with Germany.
This was great, there is a trend to say that Germany was just the scapegoat for WW1 but its leaders really were on a warpath and were reckless with their blank check promises to the Austro-Hungarians.
The way the alliances were set up. It was Germany's duty to talk down Austria and keep them from doing something stupid. It was Russias job to talk down Serbia and keep them out of trouble. But by giving out blank cheques you get a World War.
Many historians speak of what lead to WWI, but few if any ever speak about what made WWI so special historically. That is to say, looking back on the history of war, WWI is a bright dividing line in the eyes of many scholars and even of casual observers and I don't recall having seen an in depth analysis of why it is so special among wars historically.
March of Eagles is a great historical drama about this, 13 Great War Diaries is a great documentary about this. Both show how the monarchies and religious institutions failed and were diminished after ww1.
@@charlescook5542 Thank you. I was thinking of why it stands out as something different from anything that had happened prior. I didn't express that idea well.
Ottomans ruled them like almost 500 years? Its pretty bad, I'm Hungarian, we just got around 160 years from them(also, not the whole country, but 2/3 of it)
OH MY GOD, just yesterday, just yesterday, I had to make a project about world war 1 and was going through all the sources including u and miraculously you've published a video today as if u heard me, hows this happening...
The archduke would likely still have been assassinated, and if not some other catalyst would have sparked a Great War. Europe was a pot just about to boil, it just needed something to start it.
There's an anecdote that an American journalist was stationed in the Russian far east when cossack units there were mobilized and decided to interview the soldiers. He soon discovered that they didn't yet know who they were going to fight and asked them for guesses, which ranged fron attacking China or Japan to fighting the British in Persia or Afghanistan. When the troops discovered the truth, they at first refused to believe it, thinking it was ridiculous.
I used to like Tirpitz because he had a big ship named after him, and had an even bigger beard, but imagine thinking up a plan to blackmail the world's greatest superpower, a country which had the biggest and best navy in the world, into being your friend by building up a fleet to try and threaten them, only to have a shocked pikachu face when they get the wrong idea
If the alliances led to war, there would have been war in 1880, 1893, or 1904/07. The alliances worked until one nation decided to break from the Concert of Europe and to refuse a diplomatic solution of any type.
Gavrilo Princip was a member of the revolutionary Yugoslav nationalist and unification movement known as Mlada Bosna (Young Bosnia), not of the Black Hand. But the two organizations did cooperate and support each other on some matters in Bosnia. Also there was no actual proof that Serbia helped out the assassination.
Depends. War was inevitable but a war that included everyone was because of the alliances. Germany spied on Russia and their spies determined that Russia would be too powerful for them to defeat in 4 years so they had to go to war with them no matter what. It’s just that alliances turned that from a 1v1 to a global war.
@@alphagamer9505 there was a good amount of fighting in Africa. Many Asian nations joined in the war. And both of these had many troops that took part in the war in Europe. Sure they were a smaller part of the war but this was a global conflict.
@@Gingerbreadley it was more global than ww2, that's for sure, ww2 was just 2 wars happening at the same time The Second Great European War (1939-1945) The Great East Asian War (1937-1945) Germany and Japan were allies on paper, they fought alone, seperate wars all together , with some countries fighting in both of them
Germany really is located in the worst possible spot, surrounded by 3 empires that don't particularly like it. No matter what they end up fighting on all sides.
@@aleksapetrovic6519 yeah they should have just sat back and allow them to build a strong force that can sweep them aside, you must have hated frederick the great
@@guardiadecivil6777 For centuries Germans were infamous as merceneries who plundered everything and everyone. Remember Thirty Years War who much soldiers killed people? Most of them were Germans. Remember that sacking of Rome that single handly ended High Rennesaince? Again, those were the Germans. Remember those soldiers who massacred French citizens at the Fielda of Mars? Again Germans. I assume you are starting to notice the pattern. And let's not pretend something has changed. In the early 20th century, they were financing revolutions across Europe to destebilaze everyone while violently supressing any attempt at reformation. As for whole Nazi debacle, I hope I don't need tovexplain what was wrong with that. Hell, even Europe Union transformed into an attemt for Germans to control Europe trough economics. No one has anything against Germans as long as they are not as agressive, which is sadly rare. As for Fredrick the Great, wasn't that gay king who recruited people in the army by imprisoning them (like Lomonosov), who also did basically an ethnic cleansing against Poles and who won a war by having Russian Emperor who was pritty much an idiot?
Here's another factor to consider: when Serbia sent their response to Austro-Hungary, they accepted all but the last of the ultimatums. That last one involved allowing Austrian troops to enter Serbia to conduct investigations. Obviously, this is akin to giving up sovereignty and no nation would agree to this, which is what the War party in the Empire wanted. However, the Serbs did say that if Austro-Hungary didn't like these terms, they would be happy to submit to the resolution of a conference. Now you might think that the Empire would be happy with this. That surely a conference would find a reasonable solution to this and that there would be no reason not to go through with one. Right? Wrong. Problem was, due to the rise of nationalism, the empire had begun to splinter, just as the Ottomans had. And usually at these conferences, the Austrians were consistently outvoted on these matters. Seeing the state of decline the Ottomans were having and recognizing their own downward trend, the War party wanted to reverse the empire's fortunes with a glorious war of reconquest. And they weren't going to let a conference get in the way this time. Of course, all this isn't to say that there were no voices of reason within the empire. One was the Hungarian contingent. The others... were dead on the streets of Sarajevo...
Nice video as always. However, there is a small point in this that should have been addressed further. It is mentioned in the video that Serbia had been found to be behind the Black Hand organization and the Franz Ferdinand assassination. While certainly the Black Hand had the support of several Serbian military men and others, officially Serbia had denied any connection to the organization, and indeed it was never really proven by the Austrians. Instead the Austrians most probably found the assassination as the perfect CB for an invasion they were planning for a while. There is even the conspiracy theory (which honestly I do not know if I believe) that certain Austrian circles were behind the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, because they did not like his intention to grant more autonomy on the many ethnic groups of the Empire, when he would take the throne. Blaming Serbia then and justifying an invasion was an added bonus to that plan. All this is insinuated in the German-Austrian movie Sarajevo (2014).
The weapons were made by the Serbians; the revolvers manufactured under Serbian license and the recovered bombs from a Serbian state armoury at Kragujevac. Major Voja Tankosic, aide to the chief of Serbian Military Intelligence was found to have been involved and had even given the assassins marksmanship lessons. By the time these details had been put together, two weeks had already passed. It is quite clear to us today that while the Serbian government may not hae been involved, the murder was certainly permitted, and to some extent supported. I would highly recommend reading The Sleepwalkers by Christopher Clark, it is extremely well written and researched and likely formed a major part of the research for this video itself.
Alliances was already proven itself as an intensifier of skirmishs in the 7 years war, long before a minor disagreement between Serbian and the Austrian imperial courts
On the Alliance topic, one popular narrative is that it's the war was provoke by Germany moving on from Bismark's Bündnispolitik, which previously lock empires into an intertwine of alliances virtualy prevention the creation of dual blocks of rivals nations, and avoid war escalation into other countries.
France and Britain: only we can colonize the world. Deutschland: Ok we just want some tiny areas in Asia and Africa. France and Britain: The Kaiser is a mad man
It was ALL ABOUT POLAND guys, Germany took Poland! What's that? Soviet Union is also attacking poland and doing the exact same thing? And the Baltics are annexed? Molotov-Ribbentrop? Nah, it's just Germany that's the problem, because it's ALL ABOUT POLAND as we just said.
@@Chepicoro From a moral standpoint, that is not how it played out at the time. You have to take a bit more detailed view of all the things happening than this episode quickly went over. But Austria came into the war declaration looking like complete out-of-touch fools. Even the Emperor of Germany thought Austria completely came off looking bad. Long story short, by making the mistake of trying to appear diplomatic, but coming across as not genuine in that approach later. The moral compass shifted away from them.
I believe WWI could have been less deadlier if Germany never got involved. Hear me out, after Austria declared war on Serbia, it backed down after Russia threatened to defend Serbia. Russia's involvement is important because though most nations like the U.S. and Britain hated Russia, Russia was an adversary of Germany, which made it an ally with France who hated Germany and wanted any excuse to go to war with Germany. Neither Britain nor the Americans liked the French but since France was leading the war against Germany jumped on board in hopes of gaining spoils, expecting victory over Germany.
@@Oxtocoatl13 Germany could have made an ally with the U.S. with its large German and Irish population who hated Britain and France, evident by the fact that thousands of them fought for Germany in France during WWI.
@@theawesomeman9821 I mean, possibly maybe? But America in 1914 was still isolationist, basically didn't have an army and was far away. Throwing Austria under the bus would probably have meant letting Russia grow stronger by defeating Austria. All that would leave Germany very vulnerable to a two-pronged attack by a strong Russia and a vengeful France. If Germany really wanted to avoid war, their best bet would have been to maintain treaties and good relations with Russia and to work actively in defusing Russian-Austrian tensions. Sadly, by 1914, many in Germany, especially in the army, actively sought war with Russia because they feared that in a few years time Russia would be so industrialized that Germany couldn't defeat her anymore.
Any excuse to go to war with Germany ? Well so can someone tells me why France didn't jump on the occasion during the both Moroccan Crisis or why vengeful France had to wait for Germany to declare war upon them in 1914 ?
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
💥Play Supremacy 1914 for FREE on PC, iOS or Android: 💥 s1914.onelink.me/TX2k/KingsandGeneral and Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days!
So is the game f2p or a sub based
could maybe had add the reason of the austro-hugarian and russian rivalry (austria intervention in the crimea war )
I think technology played a major part. Why would a regional leader in let's say Yemen, Oman, Kuwait, or even Syria want to send $$$ to Constantinople. The ability to arm with modern smokeless gunpowder battle rifles, and raise local armies, made Empires a bit useless. Ethiopia being able to beat away Italy as an example. *until tanks came around* but that was still in the future.
Not interested in mobile games that are not free to play
They cleaned the natural inhabitants up out if there and then claimed to be them. Savages of Gimir will never live as peaceful beings.
The wake up eating the dead.
At around 12:15 I really like the detail of Norway splitting off from Sweden, even though it has nothing to do with the actual topic at hand (Norway and Sweden were neutral in the 1st World War), it just goes to show the attention to detail which I really appreciate.
Finland wasnt even born at the time 😅
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 ?
@@rorythecomrade4461 it is a country near sweden and norway...
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 I know what finland is I just wasn't sure what Finland had to do with it, but yeah they gained their independence in 1918 or 1919 I think.
@@rorythecomrade4461 it is now located in the area you was talking about
Blackadders "How the did war begin" scene basically sums it up perfectly
So the poor old ostrich died for nothing
"Have you seen any spies?"
"Nein!"
No it doesn't.
"The man is a bicycle.." :D
Blackadder has such a depressing ending its makes me cry every time
Can I just say how much I appreciate this channel. So many channels like the take, watchmojo, wisecrack, old college humor and so many others when they getting and hire more people for more regular content it really goes to Shit. But you guys are putting out content that feels like your original stuff just with great polish, you guys are out here putting out rad content multiple times a week.
So thank you from the bottom of my heart for staying yourselves.
Also want to say you seem to have followed the same track as, first getting into battles and military but quickly falling in love with social and political history which provides the necessary context for the battle. Other channels skip it but you always explain it great
The German Empire on the map looked like a dragons head about to eat warsaw
There were propaganda maps made at that time showing Germany as a wolf biting the area around Warsaw.
Signs of things to come
I can no longer unsee this.
@@MiddleSpoon3461 They broke their teeth on Warsaw time and again. And will do so if they try once more.
@@SimuLord Wrong War.
Britain and France: *conquer a combined 1/3 of the Earth*
Germany: Can we also get in on this colonisation business?
Britain and France: They’re trying to take over the world!!!
The Difference is Germany wanted Europe especially Eastern Europe (Ukraine). African Colonies costed a lot than it brought back.
@@jasonjason6525 they didn't cost that much or they would have left them after the war.
@@jasonjason6525 Then why did they keep the African colonies? Seems like it wasn't worth it?
@@JAM-hg4mp bringing them civilization and shit I guess
@@jasonjason6525 That's simply not true. Germany had no territorial ambitions in Europe prior to the First World War. Only during the war, as a result of the Allied blockade and the two-front war, this became a consideration to improve Germany's strategic position, economic base and security.
Not mention of Austria-Hungary's annexation of Bosnia in 1908 and the Balkan Wars in 1912? Those were the points where WW1 was strengthened and facilitated by the Great Powers (particularly Austria and Russia) over influence in the Balkans.
Yes that and the Schlieffenplan, which exploded a smaller conflict into an inferno.
Also the planned Berlin -Baghdhad railway and the Anglo-German naval arms race
@@mabusestestament What a stupid thing to say. The Schlieffen plan was nothing special, a simple strategy to win a war. Do you think no other nations created such plans? It was COMMON.
@KubusSc7
It's not a stupid thing to say, it's the truth. Yes it was special. And no, other countries did not have such an infernal plan let alone that they actually put it into practice.
@@mabusestestament WHAT? Do you know why Italy joined in on WW1 AGAINST her allies Germany and Austria? because the Allies convinced them by promising Tyrol. You know why the Ottoman was fighting it's own people? because the brits send Lawrence to destablize that nation, leading a revolution from within. The Allies had such planes and put them into practice.
You have no single clue about history. You should now just shut up and retreat with your tail between your legs, kid.
We also can't forget the role that technology had to play in the triggering of this war.
The prevailing (and correct) military doctrine of the time was that the first to mobilise would have a huge advantage, since entrenchment was such a powerful defensive move and railroads allowed for the almost immediate reinforcement of a front line. This lead to the great powers mobilising sooner rather than later, not waiting for diplomacy to resolve the situation. If they had have waited, they would have lost a lot of territory early on, which would have been hard to regain.
It was called the seminal tragedy because there were so many things which could have prevented it. It was just the right time with the combination of the alliances which had formed across Europe, the technology of the day and the state of world politics. Let's hope we never see its like again.
I disagree alliances had anything to do with it. The Triple Alliance was a defensive pact that was invalidated the moment Austro-Hungary committed to an aggressive action against Serbia. Germany however, choose to get involved with Austro-Hungary despite their alliance in tatters because they wanted a war. Germany made it impossible for diplomacy, regardless of who mobilized. Just because a country has mobilized doesn't mean that country has to be invaded, Switzerland mobilized, the Netherlands mobilized, even Denmark mobilized in response to Germany. Had Russia and France not mobilized, Germany would have declared war on them anyway. And the Entente Cordiale was not even an alliance, rather just a frame of mind, Britain had no legal obligation to get involved (The Royal Navy even admitted they were planning to violate Belgium neutrality), but because Germany was being so aggressive, it almost guaranteed participation by the British. The Germans got it in their head that there would never be a better time for war and expand the German Empire, so regardless of who was allied to who, the world would have been at war.
@@Edax_Royeaux Britain care a lot about the balance of power in Europe. Germany aggressiveness threaten to break that.
Its not true that the prevailing doctrine understood the role of cover, the main ideas were the clash of the french and the maneuver of the germans, all of whiwh required extreme speed. But as you can see during the first weeks of the war with massive advances, each belligerent greatly underestimated the role of supply lines and that speed alone cant do everything, as ammunitions lagged behind uncoordinated armies
Good thing this was the war to end all wars right? We don’t need a sequel
Ah man ... It's a trilogy... 😩
It's a trilogy. And after the third one, we'll have a remake of the prequel to all human wars.
@@SimuLord it was a 4 yrs war with a 20 yr old truce then another like 7 yr old war
I think Blackadder said it best
"The real reason for the whole thing was that it was just too much effort not to have a war"
why is this sounding familiar...
I was gonna say something about alliances and pieces of domino, however the real reason for ww1 is that everyone was ready for it after years of peace and prosperity. The quote: "You don't know what you've got until it's gone" seems rather fitting.
It was pretty plain that, while mindful of the various alliances, it was by no means ironclad. Also, a lot of the countries were accustomed to colonial combat, where they had clear tech advantages over their opponents, there could have been a feeling that their own countries were invulnerable, so everyone felt like a great war would be easy.
That’s partly true, the British had just fought the boer war which had cost over 22.000 soldiers lives as well as being a horribly expensive public relations nightmare (think a Victorian Vietnam lol) Russia had fought the Russo-Japanese war and been annihilated completely less than a decade before, the ottomans were always at war, the two big countries who felt that way was Germany who had fought there unification wars fifty years earlier as well as the Franco-Prussian War all of which they had won relatively easily giving them a sense of invincibility, and the French which had been building up their military ever since to get revenge, as for Austria Hungary they wanted to conquer Serbia which they thought they could do easily unfortunately the Serbs disagreed lol
That's pretty accurate @Lief
Special the last great war was the coalition wars in 1792-1815
Yeah, I think it was bound to happen eventually, with all the alliances going on, the assassination was just the final straw on top of all the tension, and so all of the powers were dragged into the war
Japan is kinda scared of Russia, and you'll never guess who's also scared of Russia : Great Britain. So, they form an alliance to be a little less scared of Russia.
And then WW2 happen.
@@Heisen2420 and than Cold War happen,
Which is weird cause we've been ignoring the biggest threat China for hundreds of years.
@@leggonarm9835 it was a pushover humiliated constantly for hundreds of years until XX century
@@leggonarm9835 at the time China was really weak
The biggest problem regarding the 'Alliances' precipitating the War wasn't so much that they existed but rather the fact that most of them were secret, hidden and downplayed. Almost every major power went into the War w/ blind spots regarding at least one or two missing facts about their enemies' alliances. If each power had bothered to advertised to one another better before the fact then it'd changed the calculus greatly.
This was a lesson learned after WW2 about alliances when they made certain to tell the world about the formation of NATO, etc.
We went even further, we effectively outlawed secret treaties with the UN charter and the Vienna convention of 1969, although some small secret treaties still exist today, the US has had a few revealed over the years mostly to do with its bases aboard. These 2 initiatives have mostly been effective
Not really, the alliances mostly were advertised. That said, some were secret and "behind the bush", and exactly those were problematic and eased the start of the war. One of the most secretive was the Franco-Italian agreement of non-attacking, whereas the same Italy was openly part of the Triple Alliance. So, in the "power match up" the AH and Germans were pretty much secure from the south, and expected Italy to join and help with France. This was one of the reasons to advance into war, as Italy in their opinion would help tip the war into a landslide victory, then after Frances capitulation Russia would pull out too.
And the victory terms would not have been horrendous at all! The Germans drafted their wishes in Septemeber papers, in the midst of Schliessen, when all seemed perfect, nothing out of the ordinary, much easier on France than Versailles was in 1919.
"The art of war is the art of deception"
- Sun Tzu
Nobody will ever sacrifice their people's security for "peace". Who confuse de enemy and captures their commander's mind will archieve victory.
@@Tata-ps4gycringe
Sir Devin has such a warm VOICE. I would love to listen it when I go to bed.
Here, some warm Recommendations:
'Veritasium' and 'Its ok to be smart' for Science.
Also just in General many Channels like Krosmo and SciShow.
Unbiased Religion-Discussions: 'Genetically Modified Sceptic' and 'Believe
it or not'.
Unbiased Research incarnated: 'Hbomberguy'.
A new angle, truly: 'Cinema Therapy'.
Another way to look at stuff: 'Legal Eagle'.
Fun in General: Redditor
Small Content Creators doing EPIC:
'Pokemon: Banette's Curse' and 'Cliffside' and 'Epithet Erased'.
Yes. Yes, this comment was random.
Now all I need is a Total World War 1.
Oh yes please
Yes need
the only problem is how to implement air units.
@@nunodasilva5449 could be with army abilities like in warhammer total war
Medieval 3 plz
When Bismarck forced to resign, thats the beginning of the end of peace visioned by Bismarck.
Isn't that the plan?
Virgin Wilhelm II vs Chad Bismarck.
Bismarck's diplomatic situation was beautiful, just deter the idea of war long enough so that France might cool its head. Too bad it fell apart as soon as the King was succeeded.
@@yaz2928 Yeah, he was a diplomatic genius and a pragmatist. If he had never caved in for others, I'm sure things would've been a lot different for him.
@@yaz2928 Nope, not even close to been a mistake. In the greater political scene, that is what most competent would call ''Making a stand''. A bold move to assert position of some power, so you can be at least accepted in future political discussions between major EU powers that you would NEED in order to preserve your newly unified nation, which was kept in shatters for millennia. The only mistake here, in my opinion, was that he didn't loudly negotiated a major alliance with the Russians. For that we can't judge him too harshly due to the situation with the Austro-Hungarians, that were the real ''Sick Man Of Europe''. In fact, if you go a bit back on that and look at the treaty of Berlin that humiliated Bulgaria and pumped the hopes of the Serbians, things could have been a lot different and the major war could have been averted.
Thanks!
If only Family is stronger than alliances, then the World Wars would’ve been avoided.
Vin Diesel be like
Tell that to the Hapsburgs, the Tudors, and the Bourbons...
Well it almost happened between Willie and Nicky
Of course you’d think that Bonaparte.
The Habsburg Experience.
UK: I hate you!
France: I hate you as well!
Germany: Hey guys I'm gonna be a great power you don't mind right?
UK: What you say froggy about a Alliances?
France: Oui doggy that sounds great
Good thing this video came in my recommendations. My module for uni is on 1900 to 1930 and right now I’m doing research on the origins of WW1
Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Austria and Germany: Plotting and undermining each another.
Switzerland: Sits back and chill
This comes ironically after the AUKUS and the FrankoGreek Mediterranean Entente(with more countries about to step in shortly). Are we living a new 1914?
A great question is how people that can not write proper english, are watching a highly sophisticated english speaking channel. I suggest you do not make the mistake of king Darius. Just take it easy and relax. Peace will be better.
If China invades or attacks Australia then yes, but that is so unlikely why even speculate? The superpowers of the world can profitably keep playing the geopolitical games they have been for decades without resorting to direct hot war scenarios.
@@miliba Yes, you can cry, france has right.
@Θ.Σ.Κ.30 The "middle east" as a concept is one we have built up as a zone of conflict and concern for our own reasons, before the invasions after 9/11 there was similar resentments and concerns in place, we were all funding certain organisations to get to certain ends etc. So I could see the so called "proxy wars" going on indefinitely without some kind of instigating event for a larger conflict.
Fair concerns though, I really hope you are wrong. I do believe we are heading into another cold war style scenario with all the rhetoric and nationalistic fervour tat has seen a recent rise, but even that doesn't necessarily mean a war, but it does mean a whole lot of jingoism and xenophobia that is yet to come, which is concerning enough really.
Nah because those nations are still quite close allies. The French throwing a fit isn't new and has happened since anglo powers came out as the premiere powers at the end of the second world war. I wouldn't read too deeply into France's current actions regarding the subs.
No, it was because Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry.
So the poor old ostrich died for nothing.
@@SimuLord Any truth the cars reg was 11 11 18.
@@SimuLord And if the Archduke's driver hadn't made a wrong turn onto the street where Princip was, it would've been a different story.
Good job, except your channel failed to mention that during the July Crisis, French President Poincarre and Czar Nicholas II held a summit in Petrograd (St. Petersburg) to affirm the Franco-Russia Alliance. At the summit, Poincarre and his aides gave Nicholas II a guarantee similar to the infamous “Blanque Cheque” that Germany had offered Austria-Hungary. The point here is that both Austria and Russia could not have made the diplomatic moves they made without support from their strongest allies.
@@PreemL not likely a Franco-German war. More like a war in the Balkans that would stayed local.
I personally think Germany wanted the war though. But they didn't want THAT war. They wanted a fast war like the previous one they fought with France. Not a 4 year slog with millions of deaths.
@@PreemL Yes, basically. All the European Great Powers bear some responsibility for starting the Great War.
Except Russia was defending an ally while Austro-Hungary was starting a war of aggression against another country.
Woooww.... the visuals are amazing!
Btw, a great video summarizing how the Great War started, however some points remained unexplained:
1- The first "League of Three Emperors" included German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and Russian Empire. Those three formed an alliance together before all started. However, the peace treaty of Berlin reversed the gains of Russian-Ottoman War of 1877-1878 and this led Russians to leave the Emperors League. Bismarck's reassurance treaty came afterwards, in order to guarantee Russian neutrality over Germans.
2-Bismarck's fall from favour not only related with Wilhelm II's advisors to sack him, but the different political visions of these two opposing each other (Realpolitik vs Weltpolitik). Bismarck was reluctant to make more aggressive moves in order to provoke major European powers to take measures against German Empire and he was very keen to neutralize each and every major European Power against Germany. On the other hand, Wilhelm II began adapting his own "Weltpolitik" vision to his cabinet. Bismarck was strongly opposing this, and this was the major reason of Wilhelm II removing him from the Chancellor position.
3- The fail of renewing the reassurance treaty between Germans & Russians was not only due to Bismarck's extraordinary reputation, but the deliberate choice of Wilhelm II not to renew it. He was more interested to retain close relationship with Austro-Hungarians. Rather than being close friends, Wilhelm & Russian Royal Family were relatives, and Wilhelm thought they will remain neutral due to family ties.
4-Russians diplomatic interactions with France came right afterwards the cancellation of reassurance treaty. The Franco-Russian agreement was not only a political and economical treaty, but a defensive military pact as well. However, this changed right after the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina by Austrians and Balkan Wars. Frenchs realized the strategical importance of Balkans for Russians after the annexation and both decided to support their offensive military operations against Germany and Austro-Hungarians.
5-The finalization of British Splendid Isolation was not directly related to Russo-Japanese incidents. The main reason of British Diplomacy to leave isolation was directly related with German diplomacy and the two events triggered by Germans: Scramble for Africa & Naval build up of Germans. Great Britain was on the verge of ensuring an alliance pact with both parties, but the actions of Germans pushed Britain to prefer Entente Cordiale.
6-The aim of German naval build-up was not for neutralizing the British diplomatic reactions against Germany, but to match British naval might in accordance with Wilhelm II's "Weltpolitik". Wilhelm was very eager to match British naval capabilities to carry his ideals through Africa & Asia, and to challenge British Navy in case of a hostility between them.
7-The two breaking points of "the July Crisis" (events triggered by the assasination of Archiduke Franz Ferdinand) were the stance taken by Austro-Hungarians after they received the answer of their ultimatum against Serbians and the Russian partial mobilization. If Austrians were more logical on the issue (if I'm not remembering wrong, Serbians accepted majority of the ten conditions but rejected one or two), they could still take gains over Serbians.
The Russian decision of partial mobilization was the final straw for German side, and in order not to challenge full Russian might, they decided to prepare for war. German infrastructre of railways were much more advanced compared to Russians, and the vital advantage of Germans (together with their military quality) against Russians was this complex and developed logistical structure to maintain a highly effective and quick logistical supply, making them faster to mobilize compared to Russians. Exploiting this advantage was the main reason why Germans decided to mobilize, manning their borders before Russians fully mobilize and avoid getting overwhelmed en masse by Russians.
Hope to see more of your WWI videos! French Mutinies of 1917 is an interesting topic ;)
It is rarely stated when discussing WWI the implosion of the ottoman empire was a sizable factor. That you for mentioning it.
I think this should have started with the Crimean war, since Austria's refusal to aid Russia then is the reason why these two would become hostile.
Before that war, it was Austrian policy to be allied to Russia since centuries before, both to prevent an attack's by Prussia, as well as to keep Russian expansion in the Balkans under control.
Russia allied itself to Austria to check Prussian expansion.
One can imagine how the world would have been different if Austria kept their alliance with the Russians.
That's true. On the other hand, Russia wanted to become to change the balance of power on the Balkans and expected from Austria to support that. Which would have been suicidal for Austria. A war against France and Britain either. So Austria did the most sensitive thing: Tried to achieve a peace without going to war on either side. Of course this has been not appriciated by Russia.
@@ChrisS-ps7mt I wouldn't be so sure that Austria could not have handled France and Britain.
Britain, being a maritime power would help France less against mostly landbound Austria than Russia would help the Habsburgs.
Also, Austria was prepared and fortified in the west. Note Austria's quadrilateral forts in Lombardy.
Form a strategic standpoint, loosing some territory in Italy to a French invasion would be less of a hit, compared to loosing Russia's support against Prussia.
In the end, Prussia would attack Austria and eject her from Germany, France and Piedmont would take her Italian possessions, and later Russia would defend Serbia, leading to a chain of events that led to the dissolution her state.
@@andrejparunovic From hindisght you are right. From the time it happened: Worst case: A defeat with unclear consequences (Austria was still shocked from the 1848 revolutions), best case: a victory - and an even stronger Russia which could dominate the balkans... Austria was in a weak position, as it had to fear Prussian and Sardinien involvement as a new Hungaryan uprising. So it had nothing to win, but a lot to loose. More then Russia with its vast territory :)
Austria-Hungary being a multinational empire could not really survive the age of rising nations and nation states. Also, I don't think they would stand a chance against France and Britain. It took them a year to defeat Serbia. Austria-Hungary was doomed either way, just as the Ottomans were.
@@catmate8358 We were talking about the crimean war. In 1914 you are right. The only legitimation for the A-H empire was the emperor by the will of god. That was no longer a valid cause to rule for many people. So Austria "had" to show its strength even more... But I think, if the Central Powers had won a swift victory in 1914, it would not have changed much for A-H. After a short period of victory celebrations, the peoples of the empire, especially the chechs and ruthenians, had wanted more rights after their contribution to the victory.
This is a good overview, and I appreciate the economy of detail used. I would really like to see your take on the Anglo-German arms race in more detail at some point. From an armchair perspective; the British reaction to the threat of the German navy is massive, reshaping the navy from a force designed to occupy the worlds oceans into a gun pointed at the head of Germany, as many far flung squadrons were scrapped and major fleets reduced in order to create the grand fleet. The British agenda in doing this is not taught or really discussed here in Britain, as the culture seems to want to downplay any perception of military aggressiveness on our part. As I said, I would love to see a more thorough take from more professional historians such as yourselves gain a wider recognition.
The thing is, Germany had quite a lot of reasons to build up their fleet because France, for example, had also a strong Navy, just as Russia. So the Germans needed a strong Navy to prevent the other two powers from blockade German trade...
@@felixjohnsens3201 All true. I’m just trying to say that, in Britain, the opinion that the First World War was something of a pointless tragedy that we blundered into is very common, but this idea seemingly runs counter to the actions of (at least) the admiralty and the diplomats who seem to be very focussed on massing force against Germany and peace everywhere else. It seems like an interesting story that is usually glossed over with ‘Tirpitz build a navy. This angered Britain, who punished them severely.’ This is a Channel usually interested in going into detail after all.
@@felixjohnsens3201 Which is exactly what happened in both World Wars, Germany relied on imported goods to feed it's troops.
@@joshuabanner3675
I'm not sure the common perception in the UK is that Britain "blundered" into the war.
The British position has always been that there needs to be a balance of the powers on the continent to safeguard itself.
As the UK's economy and military doctrine was based on the fact that it had the most powerful navy then any disruption of that balance in the locality of the British isles would obviously be deemed a threat.
It's pretty obvious really. Britain ruled half the world at the time and would not tolerate any challenge to that rule. They saw Germany as a rising power and a possible challenger and decided to attack before Germany became too strong. This is the root cause of the entente cordiale with France which happened, nota bene, ten years before the war. In other words, the war on Germany was long in planning. Serbia was promised territorial expansions (Bosnia and Croatia) if they managed to start a war, which they did via assassination of Franz Ferdinand. It was very clear that a murder of the heir to the throne would be casus belli for Austria-Hungary and at that point the war became inevitable. Serbia did get the promised territories but at a terrible price not only for themselves but for much of the world. There were many unintended consequences of WWI that Britain did not foresee, like the creation of the Soviet Union, the rise of Hitler and ultimately the loss of the British Empire - the ultimate irony, considering that the very cause of the war was an attempt to preserve it. Now we can all watch in real time the US trying to do the same.
Let’s begin incredible videos on WW1 ❤️❤️
Thank you , K&G .
Only the fighting ended in 1918, the war itself didn't end until 1919 with the signing of the treaty of Versailles which was one of the direct causes of the second world war.
The treaty of Versailles didn't end the World War, it just started a 20 year armistice.
One could argue the conflict didn’t end until May 8, 1945.
So technically, World War II hasn't ended yet between Russia and Japan since they never signed a peace treaty.
ww1 still exist today
Europe: Catches on fire again
Switzerland: I fail to see how this is my problem
Loved working with KNG for this one! Such incredible artwork and animation
Interesting video as always !
Since the roots of World War I is deep and complex, can I say that Napoleon's actions did have some influences and contributions to this war?
You could make that argument
Of course you do. To some extend, you could even say that the Roman's actions had some influence and contribution in this war.
@پیاده نظام خان
“Capitalistic Imperialistic War”
🤦♂️
It's not all that deep it was population control. The leaders were all in the same family playing a game with chess with real people.
The start of German nationalism on a serious scale, so yes.
Finnaly! I was losing hope in you, doing boring ancient and early mediavel videos, glad your making good ones again!
One of the best books on the causes of WWI is "The Sleepwalkers" by Clark. I make several references to it in my WWI lecture
@@juliantheapostate8295 funny name. Took it from grandson of Constantine?
Great Video!
Can’t wait for more content on WW1 🔥
Wonderful topic to see covered on this channel! Thanks so much!
Ah K&G starts the canon fire of WW1 series ❤❤
Oh snap! We got documentaries on Great War coming! Nice. Hey THE GREAT WAR Channel on RUclips hosted by Indy Neidell and now Alex, is a Superb learning source.
A good synopsis. A couple of pertinent points. The Germans could have held back the Austrians but instead gave them unqualified support in their invasion of Serbia. The other point is Serbia’s response to Austria effectively accepted all terms of the ultimatum but one: it would not accept Austria-Hungary’s participation in any internal inquiry, stating that this would be a violation of the Constitution and of the law of criminal procedure.
Explaining WW1 is always a rich tapestry of madness.
I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if Bismarck wasn’t removed from his position, seeing as he was a genius who predicted the Balkans being to cause and went out his way to avoid possibility of two front war
@پیاده نظام خان true
@@LuisAldamiz oh yeah so I guess this was redundant
Otto von Bismarck died in 1898 at the age of 83. So he was to old and it doesnt matter that he was removed. The problem was, that Friedrich died after 99 days and his young son, Wilhelm II become king. If Friedrich would have lived 20 years longer, than germany were more "diplomatic".
@@Skewebjor true
Bismarck made a serious mistake by not giving Russia and the balkans an appropriate treatment after the russo-turkish war of 1877-1878. Russia and its coalition decisively defeated Turkey yet it yielded little border changes in the region. This soured germany and russia relations, made the balkans even more unstable, and made Turkey believed it will hold on to its european lands permanently all of which had contributions in causing WW1.
Can’t express how much I love this educational channel!!
“For four hundred years the foreign policy of England has been to oppose the strongest, most aggressive, most dominating Power on the Continent, and particularly to prevent the Low Countries falling in the hands of such a Power.” Winston S. Churchill, Memoires
Kinda ironic isn't, remembering Britain is the most aggressive and warmonger around the world.
@@andygian5523 It was, now America took that place
Spain the France then Germany and then the Soviet Union? Makes sense ngl
Coming from Britain...
The country that funded and declared more wars than France and Germany reunited.
@@andygian5523 *was
Great vid
4:40 kinda sad you skipped the 2nd Sleschwig war between Prussia and Denmark in 1864. Bismarck did that with the same purpose.
Great vid, WWI is so interesting, excellent content
Interesting thinking about how alliances will once again pull us into World War 3. I say this as an Aussie knowing our future history students will have to study the role of AUKUS in bringing us into WW3
I think it will be next cold war
Teaching history after nuclear holocaust?
The alternative is you being "peacefully" annexed and occupied by China. Violence isn't inherently good, but sometimes it's necessary to protect yourself and others.
@@CantusTropus excellent to the point statement.
@@CantusTropus Buddy you are 100% right, I've been in war, Vietnam and am disabled. I hate any idea of war but living under Chinese Communism is not an alternative. Being war capable is a viable deterrent to the CCP. No more giving way it doesn't work.
Alliances were supposed to act as deterrence, like the later nuclear deterrent strategies.
However, secret alliances, paranoia about mobilisation, incompetent statesmen and misjudgements about how allies would react ultimately meant that this deterrence wasn't enough.
8:50 "threatened by the evergrowing aggresive Germany"
You should have provide more context on the German "aggresive" action. It feel like the British just feel threatened by Germany for no reason
Germany became and industrial superpower. That was Bismarck's aim. Once Bismarck was released Germany was doomed.
It seems like you didn’t watch the full video where it explains exactly why Britain saw Germany as aggressive and a threat.
Firstly, the German plan was to build up a large fleet, large enough to challenge Britain so much so that they’d be forced to the negotiating table. That’s a very aggressive move and was deliberately aimed at upsetting the British. Big miscalculation.
Secondly, and significantly worse. Germany invaded the lowlands which is Britain’s dangerous flank.
Any idiot who has seen British foreign policy over the last four hundred years could see that Britain has tried its best to never let any one power dominate that region. The German leadership were morons to think that by building a huge fleet that could rival Britain’s AND invade the country Britain essentially created to keep itself safe wasn’t going to upset the British.
It would be like a bloke walking up to you with a gun and demanding you to get out of the car. It’s very easy to interpret that person as aggressive.
@drunkcatphil9911 True, but the video only revealed the German naval buildup a couple of minutes after the "threatened by German aggressive actions" line. OP's confusion is justified: the non-chronological discussion of events was confusing in this instance.
Also, Germany didn't invade the lowlands until WWI, roughly a decade after Britain formed the Entente Cordiale rather than strengthen relations with Germany.
This video couldn't have come at a better time for me and my history class 😩
The 19’th century is a fascinating time, but it’s a bit unexplored after the Napoleonic Wars.
Very interesting topic... Thanks, K&G.
I think it's worth diving into what made England and France go from bitter enemies to allies
Can you imagine anything stopping them if they had been ALLIES instead of that 1000 years of hot/cold wars?
@@Morder1a they were allied in the 1500s-1600s against Spain, the superpower at the time
Common threat.
Germany was too powerful.
The French and British also allied against Spain in the past.
The biggest problem of the alliance system implemented by Otto von Bismarck is that - except him, no one could handle it.
This was great, there is a trend to say that Germany was just the scapegoat for WW1 but its leaders really were on a warpath and were reckless with their blank check promises to the Austro-Hungarians.
Yeah pretty much, Germany was not at fault for the start of the war, but the leaders and army were causing shit after Bismarck
@@canadious6933 Germany did play large part war happening. But as many thinks, things are complicated.
The way the alliances were set up. It was Germany's duty to talk down Austria and keep them from doing something stupid. It was Russias job to talk down Serbia and keep them out of trouble. But by giving out blank cheques you get a World War.
Many historians speak of what lead to WWI, but few if any ever speak about what made WWI so special historically. That is to say, looking back on the history of war, WWI is a bright dividing line in the eyes of many scholars and even of casual observers and I don't recall having seen an in depth analysis of why it is so special among wars historically.
March of Eagles is a great historical drama about this, 13 Great War Diaries is a great documentary about this. Both show how the monarchies and religious institutions failed and were diminished after ww1.
@@charlescook5542 Thank you.
I was thinking of why it stands out as something different from anything that had happened prior. I didn't express that idea well.
Its funny how you can see in the map as the years passing by that the balkan states are slowly eating the Ottoman empire
Ottomans ruled them like almost 500 years?
Its pretty bad, I'm Hungarian, we just got around 160 years from them(also, not the whole country, but 2/3 of it)
Please also make such video on The Great Game, Anglo-Russian rivalry for Afghanistan and Central Asia.
One small correction Gavrilo Princip was a member of Mlada Bosna (Young Bosnia) not the Black Hand.
OH MY GOD, just yesterday, just yesterday, I had to make a project about world war 1 and was going through all the sources including u and miraculously you've published a video today as if u heard me, hows this happening...
If Emperor Frederick III of the German Empire lived longer…we might have avoided the 1st World War
The archduke would likely still have been assassinated, and if not some other catalyst would have sparked a Great War. Europe was a pot just about to boil, it just needed something to start it.
I personally think that if Wilhelm II wasn't such a geopolitical fool, WWI at the very least would of been delayed for a while.
@@bismarckandthekriegsmarine2954 it wouldn't, Germany was on a clock to defeat Russian
@@bismarckandthekriegsmarine2954
Blame his mother and military advisers for teaching him to be a fool.
@@George-cr6jq
Still they got rekked in 2 world wars
There's an anecdote that an American journalist was stationed in the Russian far east when cossack units there were mobilized and decided to interview the soldiers. He soon discovered that they didn't yet know who they were going to fight and asked them for guesses, which ranged fron attacking China or Japan to fighting the British in Persia or Afghanistan. When the troops discovered the truth, they at first refused to believe it, thinking it was ridiculous.
I used to like Tirpitz because he had a big ship named after him, and had an even bigger beard, but imagine thinking up a plan to blackmail the world's greatest superpower, a country which had the biggest and best navy in the world, into being your friend by building up a fleet to try and threaten them, only to have a shocked pikachu face when they get the wrong idea
Great summary on the role of alliances. Would also be great to do a video on the role of financiers...
That's an interesting observation 🤷🏼♂️
If the alliances led to war, there would have been war in 1880, 1893, or 1904/07. The alliances worked until one nation decided to break from the Concert of Europe and to refuse a diplomatic solution of any type.
Basically this.
Arguably an earlier war would have been less bloody/better in the long run.
Yep as usual K&G delivers another awesome video❤️
Gavrilo Princip was a member of the revolutionary Yugoslav nationalist and unification movement known as Mlada Bosna (Young Bosnia), not of the Black Hand. But the two organizations did cooperate and support each other on some matters in Bosnia.
Also there was no actual proof that Serbia helped out the assassination.
Yes the great war, can't wait the next video, keep up K&G's
Depends. War was inevitable but a war that included everyone was because of the alliances. Germany spied on Russia and their spies determined that Russia would be too powerful for them to defeat in 4 years so they had to go to war with them no matter what. It’s just that alliances turned that from a 1v1 to a global war.
It was barely a global war, it was a European war, Africa saw little fighting,Asia almost nothing, it was mainly Europe and Middle East
@@alphagamer9505 there was a good amount of fighting in Africa. Many Asian nations joined in the war. And both of these had many troops that took part in the war in Europe. Sure they were a smaller part of the war but this was a global conflict.
@@Gingerbreadley it was more global than ww2, that's for sure, ww2 was just 2 wars happening at the same time
The Second Great European War
(1939-1945)
The Great East Asian War
(1937-1945)
Germany and Japan were allies on paper, they fought alone, seperate wars all together , with some countries fighting in both of them
Excellent video 📹 for a Sunday afternoon 😀
Post more videoa about
-Aristotle teaching Alexander the Great
-Tengrism
-Ottoman Empire astronomy (scholars,ulema)
Fun fact: WW1 began on my birthday
Germany really is located in the worst possible spot, surrounded by 3 empires that don't particularly like it. No matter what they end up fighting on all sides.
The fact they are hyper agressive war mongerers doesn't help either.
@@aleksapetrovic6519 yeah they should have just sat back and allow them to build a strong force that can sweep them aside, you must have hated frederick the great
@@guardiadecivil6777 For centuries Germans were infamous as merceneries who plundered everything and everyone. Remember Thirty Years War who much soldiers killed people? Most of them were Germans. Remember that sacking of Rome that single handly ended High Rennesaince? Again, those were the Germans. Remember those soldiers who massacred French citizens at the Fielda of Mars? Again Germans. I assume you are starting to notice the pattern. And let's not pretend something has changed. In the early 20th century, they were financing revolutions across Europe to destebilaze everyone while violently supressing any attempt at reformation. As for whole Nazi debacle, I hope I don't need tovexplain what was wrong with that. Hell, even Europe Union transformed into an attemt for Germans to control Europe trough economics. No one has anything against Germans as long as they are not as agressive, which is sadly rare.
As for Fredrick the Great, wasn't that gay king who recruited people in the army by imprisoning them (like Lomonosov), who also did basically an ethnic cleansing against Poles and who won a war by having Russian Emperor who was pritty much an idiot?
Would love for you to explore both colonization/no-European reasons for the war, and battles outside of Europe.
Here's another factor to consider: when Serbia sent their response to Austro-Hungary, they accepted all but the last of the ultimatums. That last one involved allowing Austrian troops to enter Serbia to conduct investigations. Obviously, this is akin to giving up sovereignty and no nation would agree to this, which is what the War party in the Empire wanted. However, the Serbs did say that if Austro-Hungary didn't like these terms, they would be happy to submit to the resolution of a conference.
Now you might think that the Empire would be happy with this. That surely a conference would find a reasonable solution to this and that there would be no reason not to go through with one. Right?
Wrong.
Problem was, due to the rise of nationalism, the empire had begun to splinter, just as the Ottomans had. And usually at these conferences, the Austrians were consistently outvoted on these matters. Seeing the state of decline the Ottomans were having and recognizing their own downward trend, the War party wanted to reverse the empire's fortunes with a glorious war of reconquest. And they weren't going to let a conference get in the way this time.
Of course, all this isn't to say that there were no voices of reason within the empire. One was the Hungarian contingent. The others... were dead on the streets of Sarajevo...
It ended up completely killing the Empire
Seems to me like someone's been reading "Diplomacy" ;) Great work!
Nice video as always. However, there is a small point in this that should have been addressed further. It is mentioned in the video that Serbia had been found to be behind the Black Hand organization and the Franz Ferdinand assassination. While certainly the Black Hand had the support of several Serbian military men and others, officially Serbia had denied any connection to the organization, and indeed it was never really proven by the Austrians.
Instead the Austrians most probably found the assassination as the perfect CB for an invasion they were planning for a while.
There is even the conspiracy theory (which honestly I do not know if I believe) that certain Austrian circles were behind the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, because they did not like his intention to grant more autonomy on the many ethnic groups of the Empire, when he would take the throne. Blaming Serbia then and justifying an invasion was an added bonus to that plan. All this is insinuated in the German-Austrian movie Sarajevo (2014).
The weapons were made by the Serbians; the revolvers manufactured under Serbian license and the recovered bombs from a Serbian state armoury at Kragujevac. Major Voja Tankosic, aide to the chief of Serbian Military Intelligence was found to have been involved and had even given the assassins marksmanship lessons. By the time these details had been put together, two weeks had already passed. It is quite clear to us today that while the Serbian government may not hae been involved, the murder was certainly permitted, and to some extent supported.
I would highly recommend reading The Sleepwalkers by Christopher Clark, it is extremely well written and researched and likely formed a major part of the research for this video itself.
Great video
Alliances was already proven itself as an intensifier of skirmishs in the 7 years war, long before a minor disagreement between Serbian and the Austrian imperial courts
Not to mention Morocco crisis proved that Great Powers were eager to fight a global war.
On the Alliance topic, one popular narrative is that it's the war was provoke by Germany moving on from Bismark's Bündnispolitik, which previously lock empires into an intertwine of alliances virtualy prevention the creation of dual blocks of rivals nations, and avoid war escalation into other countries.
France and Britain: only we can colonize the world.
Deutschland: Ok we just want some tiny areas in Asia and Africa.
France and Britain: The Kaiser is a mad man
It was ALL ABOUT POLAND guys, Germany took Poland!
What's that? Soviet Union is also attacking poland and doing the exact same thing? And the Baltics are annexed? Molotov-Ribbentrop?
Nah, it's just Germany that's the problem, because it's ALL ABOUT POLAND as we just said.
@@LeviForWaifu Not only that, the people of Danzig had no interest in being a part of Poland
Agree I can´t see a moral difference between both sides.... if anything the Austro-hungarian ultimatum to Serbia was justified.
@@Chepicoro From a moral standpoint, that is not how it played out at the time. You have to take a bit more detailed view of all the things happening than this episode quickly went over. But Austria came into the war declaration looking like complete out-of-touch fools. Even the Emperor of Germany thought Austria completely came off looking bad. Long story short, by making the mistake of trying to appear diplomatic, but coming across as not genuine in that approach later. The moral compass shifted away from them.
@@Chepicoro I think it was justified given the activities of the black hand
Love those animations👏
I believe WWI could have been less deadlier if Germany never got involved. Hear me out, after Austria declared war on Serbia, it backed down after Russia threatened to defend Serbia. Russia's involvement is important because though most nations like the U.S. and Britain hated Russia, Russia was an adversary of Germany, which made it an ally with France who hated Germany and wanted any excuse to go to war with Germany. Neither Britain nor the Americans liked the French but since France was leading the war against Germany jumped on board in hopes of gaining spoils, expecting victory over Germany.
And if Germany hadn't backed Austria they would have lost their strongest ally and been basically isolated, leaving them vulnerable in the future.
@@Oxtocoatl13 Germany could have made an ally with the U.S. with its large German and Irish population who hated Britain and France, evident by the fact that thousands of them fought for Germany in France during WWI.
@@theawesomeman9821 I mean, possibly maybe? But America in 1914 was still isolationist, basically didn't have an army and was far away. Throwing Austria under the bus would probably have meant letting Russia grow stronger by defeating Austria. All that would leave Germany very vulnerable to a two-pronged attack by a strong Russia and a vengeful France.
If Germany really wanted to avoid war, their best bet would have been to maintain treaties and good relations with Russia and to work actively in defusing Russian-Austrian tensions. Sadly, by 1914, many in Germany, especially in the army, actively sought war with Russia because they feared that in a few years time Russia would be so industrialized that Germany couldn't defeat her anymore.
@@Oxtocoatl13 good argument
Any excuse to go to war with Germany ? Well so can someone tells me why France didn't jump on the occasion during the both Moroccan Crisis or why vengeful France had to wait for Germany to declare war upon them in 1914 ?
Nice !
All those countries declaring war one after the other so fast; it almost sounds funny, except that it was so horrible.
Ooof making a video for sponsors? Anyway good job like always!!
K&G: "Did 'Aliiances' lead to Great War?"
Me: "That's why I choose the 'Horde' as my faction. "
Would be stoked for a WW1 series
Aren’t alliances just best friends
No its not. Now, go back the mid-nineteenth century Where you belong!!
I think it’d be cool if you guys could do some videos centred around the generic history questions you get in secondary/high school for exams
- UK safeguards Belgiums neutrality
- Germany invades Belgium
- UK declares war on Germany
- Germany: *Surprised Pikachu face
Cant help but love the maps these boys make
According to M-A-I-N, Yes.
Military alliance idk nothing
Good conclusion: If the alliance works, war is prevented. If it doesn't, war can last longer.