วีดีโอ

Sorry TH-cam I won’t answer your survey that popped up because you censor my comments and even censor science, TH-cam you are Scum.

This is a difficult question to resolve. The regime obviously, the economy and how it functioned might always make it difficult. Being a dictatorship and being that particular dictatorship are key factors. But you can point to particular strategic and also tactical decisions which with some changes make it entirely feasible they could have ‘won’. Finding a a definition of ‘winning’ is important. That definition I would argue changed as the war progressed. If Halifax becomes Prime Minister it may have taken GB out of the war. At which point the question of how much Lebensraum in the East and where is relevant. If Hitler doesn’t order the Halt Order 24th May 1940 and the BEF is crushed that changes the dynamic hugely. If Fighter Command is annihilated and targeted after 15th September 1940 that changes the dynamic. If an alternative to ENIGMA is found that changes the dynamic. If the Normandy landings are crushed that possibly changes the dynamic, in the European theatre. And given the number of Nazis that obtained positions of power in West Germany, the establishment of the EEC and the end to denazification in c.1948 and after Tehran and Yalta not being able to trust Stalin conclusively, I think an argument could be made that the allies, especially with De Gaulle sidelined deliberately and France a) totally broken b)under the Nazi and collaborative yoke and c) a socialist nest, would settle for the status quo in Europe. As we later saw. de Gaulle hated GB and Churchill. So depending on what’victory’ is, I think it is possible.

What a stupid Click Bait !!!! You could have gotten serious and disclosed that Germany wanted to end the war, but David Lloyd George saw that continuing the war would help him personally. That is an actual bit of history that would help people understand these conflicts.

@MikeM10293 Wrong, it is orange that wants to do it. Note at how he tried to rig the election in Georgia and in other states. Along with his insurrection on Jan 6. Yet you still ignorantly voted for him again.

Urgh, 'just in case'? No, Russia very much wanted to 'support' Serbia. Apart from that (and one other thing), though, this all seemed right. The other thing? The Conclusion. This doesn't make the 14-18 war Britain's fault. I agree that the tripple entente was an error. It was an effort to turn the obvious enemy (Russia) into a 'friend', but it was a mistake because it would have been more prudent to try to keep the struggle confined to the east. If Germany had not insisted on developing its navy then that might have been possible. If Russia had not insisted on Serbia being part of some grand pan-slavic community, the things might have been far less messy. If I were asked for a fault it would be as much with Russia and France as it would be with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Britain is a long way down the list. It's like blaming someone who owns a nice TV for thieves breaking into their home and stealing it (admittedly you could argue that the 'owner' had initially stolen the TV from India so they had it coming, but still) this war was not Britain's fault (in its inception). What is perfectly arguable is that the duration and scale of the war was partly Britain's fault. Don't form the entente, hopefully the French and Germans don't insist on joining the Russia-Austria war, but assuming that's very unlikely, don't join the bigger second Franco-Prussian war (even when little Belgium is stomped on), and put up with a German hegemony on the continent and a German navy which rivals Britain's. I'm not sure it would have been better though. There would might have been an even bigger war between the Anglosphere and Germany in the 30s, and Germany might have won that one.

The "sea peoples" that you mentioned were otherwise known as the phoenicians, what the bible calls the "philistines," aka the the people isreal fights in the Bible..."david and goliath" anyways nice video.

American and British historians do everything to blame either Germany or Russia (for supporting Serbian nationalism). This is done tendentially, especially with Germany, because after World War I, Germany was forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles and pay war reparations to France and Britain, who then used that money to repay the debt to American capitalists. The result was the collapse of the German economy and the rise of the Nazis. The First World War started because of the Berlin-Baghdad project, which would have made Germany the leading world power, which the British could never have allowed.

what arrant nonsense - do proper research next time

In set piece battle, Aztec officers were all dressed like peacocks which Cortez made priority targets. In their biggest army on army clash, a single Spanish calvary charge killed the leading Aztec general, destroying command and control in minutes. Aztecs also had poor logistics (they never invented the wheel lol) They couldn't sustain a field army for any length of time and simply surround Cortez staying in the safety of Tlaxcaltec territory Small pox is a poor excuse since Cortezs Indian allies were also infected with it. What was the Aztec army doing? They had months to prepare, send out scouts, ambushs, any kind of perimeter defense outside of the city. They literally had specific sub sets of elite soldiers trained in lightning raids as that's how they got all those human sacrifices. Where were they at? Yes, they fought a heroic last stand but in futile engagements. There are alot of questions that unanswered otherwise point to pure incompetence.

Prescient

very good and true video, i also had the idea of making the same video

3:12 Eh.... There were a few revolutions not just the two in Russia.

and the re-writing of history continues. The benefit of hindsight

Bollocks

Britain was at fault for everything before the world wars. USA has been at fault for everything since the world wars. Britain and USA have committed the biggest crimes in the last few hundred years along with Hitler and his phase. Make no mistake about it Britain and USA are not heroes, they are just as bad as Hitler they just didn’t do it is obviously and what they did they make sure they don’t teach anybody about.

britain was responsible for ww2 as well.

That ship already sailed in 2020. Let’s hope for normalcy in a few months!

Never really explained how USA was the blame

Bullshit

Worra Lorra Crap. The stupid "music" doesn't help matters either.

Starting the video. If I remember correctly, all the kings had the same grandma…Queen Victoria

Germany lost the war when they lost the 1st battle of the marne against the French , because that was the decisive battle if wether they were gonna reach Paris or not , and they lost so now they had to hide in trenches and defend while they attack in the east but they got mass casualties from the trench war.

The biggest question is why did fucking big russia care about some tiny uninteresting country in the balkans?

European royalty with agendas of conquest and plunder 👑✡33.

I blame Russia for supporting Serbia. Serbia antagonized Austria unnecessarily when Austria had everything to lose. That war would've been a localized war in the Balkans. Germany had to support its only ally against France/Russia. Russia didn't have that much on the line by supporting Serbia, it was more opportunistic than the others. Once Russia committed, France had to back it up. Once that all happened the UK had to stop Germany from taking over Europe.

Judea

Every country in WW I had dirty hands.

Capitalism was to blame. If you look at how all the European powers needed expansion for markets they all were going to come to blows. This was a war decades in the making

This video has nothing new or useful to say. And Britain was not "to blame" for the Great War.

Just Iran? The 'mess' extends far beyound Iran. Iran is now also a threat to every country in the region. A question now, with Russia apparently failing and becoming a questionable threat and the USA not needing Middle East oil, is does the USA really care what happens in the region? Much of what it did after WW2 was to contain the spread of comunism. (by force, the incidious expansion by other means seems to be going quite well.) War and conflict seems to be a feature of the region reguardless of time and politics. Without the outside nations wanting the oil and passage through the Suez Canal they would probably not care what happens there. Iran, through it's surrogates seems to want to make problems for everyone near them. Seemingly hoping to not trigget an outright war that might, even the threat of their nuclear weapons, not protect them from those they threaten. (classic, use outisde threats/conflicts to deflect the reason for the poor lives it's people have?)

I still maintain that Germany is responsible, since the Kaiser's expansionist policies threatened everyone around them. The British were not after Germany's existing territory. Note that the Kaiser and the Tsar were both grandsons of Queen victory. At her funeral, the Kaiser became insanely jealous of his British cousin and started building his fleet, directly as a threat to Britain. Britain certainly outmaneuvered Germany in diplomacy, but the Kaiser was not a particularly friendly type.

nice video

What a monumentally incoherent narrative. Networks of alliances are established for a plenitude of different reasons across a complex geopolitical map the narrator chooses a singular entry point. You could just as easily say Russia started the war, or Austria as the conflict could be easily prefaced by the 1848 revolutions and the outcome for Serbian nationalism. GB had alliances ratified by treaty. If you want to engage with complex historical networks dont look for simplistic single causes and culprits. We know that Ferdinand's assassination was only ever a catalyst.

It was a perfect storm. I don't blame UK for entering the war, but their entry was a catastrophe as it stopped a quick victory of Germany over France from occurring which prolonged the war exponentially, and caused millions of lives lost. Then again, had Kaiser Wilhelm been more insistent for his generals to drop the Schliessen plan, which was outdated by 1914, and instead remain purely defensive against France, then it's almost certain Britain would not have been involved, and Germany would then have been able to focus on the East, bringing the war to a swift conclusion by Christmas. Very tragic for all of Europe.

Well there was a revolution in Russia.

Applying that same logic would mean, NATO is responsible for the Ukraine war. Alliances do not cause wars. It's imperialists who think expanding their realm is kind of their birthright. Kaiser Wilhelm shouldn't have invaded Belgium as Putin shouldn't have invaded Ukraine. WW1 wasn't beneficial for Germany, neither were the colonies or that large fleet. And hell, that war in Ukraine is surely not beneficial for Russia. Willy and Wladi are not the kinds of people to start a war for the better of their country, but for their own ambition only.

There was a revolution. The desire of the Kaiser was to have an empire and a very large navy. Arch Duke Ferdinand was in fact sympathetic to some Serbian independence and Serbia relied upon Russia to guarantee it. The Austrians had given a vague Parliament to Hungary and restored its crown. Britain had recently caught the Boer War where the Boers had received support from Germany. There was earlier the Schleswig Holstein question which occupied Britain and Germany. There was activity in Morocco which caused animosity between Britain and Germany and France had the concepts of Outrance from its defeat at Sedan by Germany. In Africa there was much manoeuvre by Germany to expand its position and in various embassies around the world the endeavoured to make themselves persons to go to since their unification. The layout of German railways was always a matter of defending two fronts from unification. The expansion of the British fleet came about when it was realised that Germany had more capital class warships than she did and finally there had commenced a trade war globally between Germany and Britain. Now Napoleon was quite correct that Britain is a nation of shop keeps and 140 years later De Gaul made the same observation as to why we would never fit in the Common Market. So who caused WWI? It was a combination of social conditions and political desires of major influence upon the Continent which also had a global expression. The British Empire was just starting to fragment and everybody wanted a bit but this was only achieved after WWII and was the price of American assistance. However, America had no idea as to how to manage the vacuum. The settlement of WWI was so bad there had to be a part 2 to recover from it. It only partly worked and then not very well!