Interesting. A very different viewpoint to many, even close to 9 yes after this presentation. Where MAIN is often centred by way of causation. Something to consider & reflect upon. Thx to @WesternFrontAssociation for this
I used to blame the Kaiser for the war, but now I am switching the boney finger of historical accusation onto Moltke. The idea that the German logistical people couldn't figure out how to do that is ridiculous. Yes, it had it's dangers, but if the Kaiser was really in charge, Moltke would have done it. If the Kaiser was not in charge, then it becomes the case of Moltke and the German General Staff choosing to go to war without listening to the Kaiser. In any case, the problem with the Kaiser was that he was a weak man, but then, truly strong monarchs are both very rare and very dangerous. so it goes.
The General Staff could certainly have devised a new plan ... if they had had a few months or maybe more. But they didn't have that time. Remember, in 1914 they didn't have computers to help calculate the new railroad timetables needed. They didn't have the communications to distribute any new plans quickly.
Remember being interested in WW1 as a young man by date of Birth 1950 we were taught the Civil War 100th years in Grammar School; but life magazine has a series on WW1, remember too our father uncles neighbors many were WW2 veterans. Hitler was also big, he a WW1 veteran,
I have seen this lecture on the Pershing lectures. Along with a few other, All want to give thier opinion from thier book on why the war started. Arguments suggesting German blame are out of fashion. Inevitable also out of fashion, So sleep walking, Avoidable but misunderstandings until to late. Unfortunately I can’t find a lecture just focusing on the facts and the events. Most argue the Arch Dukes assignation wasn’t a big deal, nobody liked him or cared. I find this hard to believe. He was the heir to the throne, he was an important dude. He might not have been well liked. It must have meant something important to Austria. The ultimatum was extreme. It changed the opinions of Russia particularly, probably France and even Britain. What was the French position on Russian support of Serbia, Were the French really going to mobilize and attack Germany, If Russia attacked Austria Hungary? The Germans at least Feared the French would. So the Franco Russian Alliance must have been an important part of the process. Britain’s involvement was doubtful right up until The Germans attacked Belgium, Even then it still required a request for help by Belgians, There was several important government minister’s resignations, only a very narrow majority of the cabinet voted for war. Belgium had no option, or a very limited option. Accept invasion without resistance or Resistance and probable defeat. The Belgians chose resistance. France had not option in the end, France was attacked. And responded by attempting to implement their war plan. Britain joined in, Germany probably lost the war the moment it started. With the ultimatum to Belgium. Britain’s economic strength, Naval power, and tiny Army, tipped the Balance to an impossible long shot for Germany. The invasion of Belgium swung American opinion firmly against Germany, again eventually resulting in overwhelming economic power against Germany.
Your point about the Franco-Russian alliance was the question I wanted answering too. Was it a purely defensive alliance or did France have to go to Russia's aid if they attacked Austro-Hungary first or indeed if Russia attacked Germany first?
Eight years later it is more than obvious that imperialism does indeed start the war. It is not nationalism that we should put blame on. Knowing what we know today one can be more than sure that the cause of the Great War was a clash of German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, French, Serbian, Turkish and English imperialisms.
I don't think the comments about Alsace-Lorraine are at all correct. The French in general were *deeply* wounded by this loss. This legacy of the humiliation of 1871 exists in the national consciousness to this day. Finding a couple of quotations that say otherwise is not sufficient as evidence to the contrary.
Definitly not, in the first years following the end of the Franco-Prussian War, yes the overall majority of the population expressed bitterness. As time goes by, the bitterness let place to apathy in front of a fait accompli. However by the beginning of the 20th century, only a small part of the nationalists really cared about it, it was not even mentionned as a aim during political campaign, (which in itself says a lot) from the end of Boulangism until the start of the Great War. People were even more concerned by colonial adventure all around the world than by Alsace-Lorraine. 'This legacy of the humiliation of 1871 exists in the national consciousness to this day.' Seriously ? Most of the French don't give a damn of something that happened 151 years ago. 'Finding a couple of quotations that say otherwise is not sufficient as evidence to the contrary.' Be kind and provide your own evidences.
Neiberg argues that there isn't contemporary documentary evidence that supports the belief that A-L was a key motivation to France joining the war. It's impossible to comprehensively prove a negative proposition like that, but it should be fairly easy for you to provide a counterexample to disprove it.
are there parallels between the time of the Great War and today, the answer is yes. but if you follow the MSM you'll never find it. The title of the lecture is deceptive, it might be an intro to something, certainly not the outbreak. Wish he could sum it up in 7 minutes. taking about M.A.I.N. but then illiminating it. I am ok with that, not necessarily because I agree with his arguments but because I agree that we need to really understand the history to learn from it, otherwise we'd be commemorating something without knowing what really happened
The WFA logo looks like you're staring down an angry fish.
As an American, I quite appreciate this lecture in particular, as it is perfect for American audiences in contextualizing WW1.
Great to see this lecture happening in my home town!
Interesting.
A very different viewpoint to many, even close to 9 yes after this presentation. Where MAIN is often centred by way of causation.
Something to consider & reflect upon.
Thx to @WesternFrontAssociation for this
Gosh this is excellent. So relevant today
I used to blame the Kaiser for the war, but now I am switching the boney finger of historical accusation onto Moltke. The idea that the German logistical people couldn't figure out how to do that is ridiculous. Yes, it had it's dangers, but if the Kaiser was really in charge, Moltke would have done it. If the Kaiser was not in charge, then it becomes the case of Moltke and the German General Staff choosing to go to war without listening to the Kaiser. In any case, the problem with the Kaiser was that he was a weak man, but then, truly strong monarchs are both very rare and very dangerous. so it goes.
The General Staff could certainly have devised a new plan ... if they had had a few months or maybe more. But they didn't have that time. Remember, in 1914 they didn't have computers to help calculate the new railroad timetables needed. They didn't have the communications to distribute any new plans quickly.
Excellent lecture
Remember being interested in WW1 as a young man by date of Birth 1950 we were taught the Civil War 100th years in Grammar School; but life magazine has a series on WW1, remember too our father uncles neighbors many were WW2 veterans. Hitler was also big, he a WW1 veteran,
Dr. Neiberg, master historian
Would have been nice to include the questions.
I have seen this lecture on the Pershing lectures. Along with a few other, All want to give thier opinion from thier book on why the war started. Arguments suggesting German blame are out of fashion. Inevitable also out of fashion, So sleep walking, Avoidable but misunderstandings until to late.
Unfortunately I can’t find a lecture just focusing on the facts and the events.
Most argue the Arch Dukes assignation wasn’t a big deal, nobody liked him or cared. I find this hard to believe. He was the heir to the throne, he was an important dude. He might not have been well liked. It must have meant something important to Austria.
The ultimatum was extreme. It changed the opinions of Russia particularly, probably France and even Britain.
What was the French position on Russian support of Serbia, Were the French really going to mobilize and attack Germany, If Russia attacked Austria Hungary?
The Germans at least Feared the French would. So the Franco Russian Alliance must have been an important part of the process.
Britain’s involvement was doubtful right up until The Germans attacked Belgium, Even then it still required a request for help by Belgians, There was several important government minister’s resignations, only a very narrow majority of the cabinet voted for war.
Belgium had no option, or a very limited option. Accept invasion without resistance or Resistance and probable defeat. The Belgians chose resistance.
France had not option in the end, France was attacked. And responded by attempting to implement their war plan.
Britain joined in,
Germany probably lost the war the moment it started. With the ultimatum to Belgium.
Britain’s economic strength, Naval power, and tiny Army, tipped the Balance to an impossible long shot for Germany.
The invasion of Belgium swung American opinion firmly against Germany, again eventually resulting in overwhelming economic power against Germany.
Your point about the Franco-Russian alliance was the question I wanted answering too. Was it a purely defensive alliance or did France have to go to Russia's aid if they attacked Austro-Hungary first or indeed if Russia attacked Germany first?
There are a few things in this lecture I struggle with, but an interesting perspective all the same and certainly thought-provoking.
Eight years later it is more than obvious that imperialism does indeed start the war. It is not nationalism that we should put blame on. Knowing what we know today one can be more than sure that the cause of the Great War was a clash of German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, French, Serbian, Turkish and English imperialisms.
Impressive how you can answer difficult questions by claiming they are obvious. Can you do Riemann's hypothesis next?
I would like to hav seen the Q and A.
Reading The Darkest Days which I highly recommend.
I honestly read the title as "Dance of the Furries" and I thought it would be a video about a furry convention
Found his comments on the Austro-Hungarian reading of the crisis as an 'opportunity' interesting. is there much evidence to support it?
yes
Yes, it's called reading history.
Start 2:40.
does anyone have any details on the french scandal he refers to as "the trial of the century" ?
the trial of Henriette Caillaux, wife of a french minister, pretty crazy story if you are interested
Is the WFA logo some sort of joke? From a distance and on my phone it looks like a strangely coloured sad-face.
It's phycological in element, to keep little rambling brains, rambling, while adults focus on more important subjects.
How did britai n get involved then
Germany went through neutral Belgium to attack France. Britain had a commitment to defend Belgium.
Americans are not interested in WW1? He clearly hasn't been on any WW1 aviation forums dominated by American fans of MvR 😂
I don't think the comments about Alsace-Lorraine are at all correct. The French in general were *deeply* wounded by this loss. This legacy of the humiliation of 1871 exists in the national consciousness to this day. Finding a couple of quotations that say otherwise is not sufficient as evidence to the contrary.
Definitly not, in the first years following the end of the Franco-Prussian War, yes the overall majority of the population expressed bitterness. As time goes by, the bitterness let place to apathy in front of a fait accompli.
However by the beginning of the 20th century, only a small part of the nationalists really cared about it, it was not even mentionned as a aim during political campaign, (which in itself says a lot) from the end of Boulangism until the start of the Great War. People were even more concerned by colonial adventure all around the world than by Alsace-Lorraine.
'This legacy of the humiliation of 1871 exists in the national consciousness to this day.' Seriously ? Most of the French don't give a damn of something that happened 151 years ago.
'Finding a couple of quotations that say otherwise is not sufficient as evidence to the contrary.' Be kind and provide your own evidences.
Neiberg argues that there isn't contemporary documentary evidence that supports the belief that A-L was a key motivation to France joining the war. It's impossible to comprehensively prove a negative proposition like that, but it should be fairly easy for you to provide a counterexample to disprove it.
Johnson David Wilson Susan Clark Kimberly
Taylor Daniel Jones Edward Lee Karen
are there parallels between the time of the Great War and today, the answer is yes. but if you follow the MSM you'll never find it. The title of the lecture is deceptive, it might be an intro to something, certainly not the outbreak. Wish he could sum it up in 7 minutes. taking about M.A.I.N. but then illiminating it. I am ok with that, not necessarily because I agree with his arguments but because I agree that we need to really understand the history to learn from it, otherwise we'd be commemorating something without knowing what really happened