Dance of the Furies: Europe and the Outbreak of War, 1914 - Michael Neiberg
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ส.ค. 2024
- Michael Neiberg, US Army War College
The common explanation for the outbreak of World War I depicts Europe as a minefield of nationalism, needing only the slightest pressure to set off an explosion of passion that would rip the continent apart. This talk will present a crucial reexamination of the outbreak of violence in 1914. It will show that ordinary Europeans, unlike their political and military leaders, neither wanted nor expected war during that fateful summer. By training our eyes on the ways that people outside the halls of power reacted to the rapid onset and escalation of the fighting, this talk dispels the notion that Europeans were rabid nationalists intent on mass slaughter. It reveals instead a complex set of allegiances that cut across national boundaries.
Lecture presented during the 15th Annual Truman Library Teachers' Conference at the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum
For more information about the National WWI Museum and Memorial visit theworldwar.org
![[Live] : ONE FIGHT NIGHT 24 วันนี้!! “จาร์เร็ด vs กุสตาโว”](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ENNA-fsT67c/mqdefault.jpg)
![เจ้าผู้เดียว - ดิด คิตตี้ [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/q0NLCYKBOTo/mqdefault.jpg)
My compliments for a talk that made me rethink many of the famous anecdotes of World War I. The main takeaway for me: always be critical and explore more in-depth what exactly was playing out.
I'm an adult with a recent desire to learn about WWI. This talk is EXCELLENT! Right out of the gate, this talk has helped me maintain a more nuanced view of the cause of the war.
Agreed - this a great talk
Omul cât trăiește învață
While I agree that it was against Britain's interests for Germany to defeat France and perhaps gain control of the North Sea - and possibly Atlantic - coast, there is a key factor absent from this discussion: Britain's Cabinet (government) would have had a very hard time deciding for war if Germany had not invaded Belgium.The disconnect between German foreign policy and military planning meant the military plan drove the foreign policy, not the other way around. In this sense, Germany contradicted their own great military thinker von Clausewitz's maxim that 'war is policy by other means'. German generals made policy subservient to war and kept doing so until they accumulated so many enemies as to guarantee their own defeat.
Terrific talk, one of the very best I've heard on the outbreak of war in 1914. Must read some of his books!
I think that Michael Neiberg is a very good lecturer. Have enjoyed every lecture I have seen on the channel.
Thank you very much, plenty of room to continue to learn.
A very thoughtful, insightful lecture, fascinating X
What an interesting lecture!! So much I didn't know and I'm a history buff!
"Autumn Campaign -- 1914" This is the legend engraved on the personal silver table service of a French Army captain at the start of WWI. The regiment presented this service to all its officers. I saw it when I, a student at the time, lodged with his daughter in 1967-68. The poignancy! No one at that time knew what was coming at them! The captain was later injured, invalided out to a staff job in Paris. One sunny day, while taking his daughter -- my landlady -- for a walk, they witnessed the "arrival" of a shell from the Paris Gun. The young girl then experienced the horror of the park's trees hanging with body parts. Later, in WWII, she was to lose her husband to German occupiers. When I later became engaged to a German girl, she was not enthusiastic -- but she invited me and my new wife for dinner on our next European trip.
Fantastic lecture. Very well researched and explained
The most convincing lecture on the causes of 1st World War the I have come across. Brilliantly persuasive
Imagine the world if this war never took place. If militarism really had wained, if Austria and the ottomans managed to federalize and reform themselves, if fascism and communism were never unleashed upon the world. This war truly was disastrous
Fascism and communism were inevitable. They are two different reactions the crises that arise from capitalism. Those crises are guaranteed and inherent to capitalism.
@@pluginleah I’ll go with the crisis of capitalism and the prawn sandwich.
I don't know about communism and fascism being inevitable, but the Austro-Hungarian Empire was headed for a breakup, and it's unlikely that would have been a placid affair. It's easy to see Russia and France going to war to prevent Germany from picking up the pieces of the fallen Austria, and Britain getting involved to prevent the balance of power being upset.
@@pluginleahI find it hilarious to say both strands of Modernist Totalitarianism are "inherent" to Capitalism when neither have occured nor taken hold of any developed, Capitalist nation.
They appeared in Italy, Germany, Russia, and China, which unlike France, the UK, or the US, were all countries that majority agrarian in nature and did not mechanise agriculture until after World War 2.
It was in the developed, industrial societies that had the majority of workers as part of urban communities, where the agricultural elite was not dominant, where agriculture was an industry that paid wages rather than in kind, where Totalitarianism failed to take hold.
Also note that those same countries that fell to Totalitarianism all had those systems collapse, bar China. The term "Late Stage Capitalism" was invented before the Soviet Union was created *and outlived it*.
The countries that survived the war were all well developed, Capitalistic democracies.
19:30 The Panther does mount guns. Looking at the vessel at effectively higher resolution, you can clearly see that it has guns.
Yes indeed it was a gunboat carrying in part 2x105mm guns. I also found out that other German warships later took over from her and that the Germans had a warship continuously stationed in Agadir for about 8 months in 1911.
Great lecture!
I am glad to see that historians are starting to blend everything from 1914 to 1989 as one long
unity of conflict, rather than separate events. I would argue taking it back further to 1870 or even earlier (1848?) and extending it to the present day.
tsar vlad the intriguer/invader's Ukraine adventure is a holdover from the Stalin years,
as is the "Coalition" (read US) war on terror, a result of the Sykes/Picot backroom dealings.
In other words, we aren't out of this yet. We are still living under the threat of late imperial capitalism's death throes, and what might be unleashed in the name of upholding that system.
Great lecture
The QA about the Kaiser and Tsar's lack of control over their militaries makes me wonder if that was the most critical systemic mistake that led to WWI. Particularly, that Germany had "no choice" but to pull the trigger on an insanely aggressive war plan, with no way to scale it down, redirect it, etc.
It didn't lead to it, only to the expansion. It's entirely possible the war is limited to Serbia and Poland if there is no forced Schlieffen plan.
Great talk, there was just one thing that annoyed me slightly as a local of what used to be "Markgrafshaft Mähren" in those days :). The administration and political system of Austria-Hungary was not divided along ethnic but territorial lines. One did not have to be an "ethnic" German to sit in the Austrian parliament or serve as a military general or a judge or in any kind of high office of state.
Great performance sir.
Thank you 🙏
Thank you.
The "MAIN" method of teaching causes of WW I can be applied to at least some, probably most, of the people in power. Churchill's first volume of his work on the war certainly indicates the British cabinet looked at Germany with an eye towards the likelihood of conflict. During the Q&A I particularly appreciated Mr. Neiberg's conclusions about the attitude of the German General Staff.
Yes, if I recall Lord Fisher wanted to preemptively strike the German fleet.
Wish he would have developed the awareness of the German war plan to move through Belgium into France. How strong and well known was the Alliance between France and Russia?
Is the spelling of the city he mentioned about saluting Savarin?
Very interesting, very good, A few things I have doubts about. I agree few people in France or Britain had ever even heard of Franze Ferdinand.
I find it hard to believe most other governments would not care about an assassination. Particularly when another country is suspected of involvement. It’s surprising if this had been taken to arbitration, Arbitration would have very likely been favourable to Austria.
Other historians have argued in these lectures there was more going on between the French and the Russians in July than meets the eye based on supposed missing documents.
Even so, Some Austrians clearly wanted a war,
Germany may not have realized this.
The Russians didn’t start mobilization without expectations of French support.
Both the Tzar and Kaiser were talked into mobilization by advisers who believed, we have to do this now before the other side gets to strong.
Moltke pretty well flat out lied to the Kaiser about not being able to change plans to only mobilize in the East.
There were some important military and political players who were looking for war.
The majority were not but key people were, and they were able on this occasion get their way.
The French may appear at first even second glance as innocent parties. The public may have been, Senior French military were concerned Germany was getting too strong for them to keep up.
Meanwhile German military were thinking the same about the Russians.
They also had this insane plan to invade Belgium. To defeat France before the Russians could act.
I think reality is somewhere between the old view of the German war guilt, MAIN and this modern accidental war concepts.
My biggest doubts are the creation of hatred.
I am old enough to have known a WW 1 veteran. He did not hate the Turks(he was at Gallipoli)
Or Germans. He was also on the Western Front.
My Grandfather served from 1915 to 1918 on the western front. He not only did not hate Germans or Germany. He spoke very well about German front line army.
He reported they treated him almost like a comrade, when he was wounded and capture on 21 March 1918. The front line soldiers had sympathy for each other’s hardships. they were all stuck in the same situation. Just on different sides.
My wife’s Grandfather was an old contemptible. I never heard of him expressing hate about the Germans even though he was shot by a German sniper. His unit the Seaforth HDR .
Were 4th Div BEF, they wee on the line on Christmas Day 1914. The legendary truce could not have occurred between men who hated each other.
He did have some pretty strong feelings about the French.
As for Nationalism, it’s not gone away, Just think of Brexit.
Anyone who’s done history in school in the UK or watched blackadder had heard of Franz Ferdinand. There was even a Scottish band named after him
One anecdote isn’t everyone. The propaganda then was almost identical to the propaganda now, and look how many people hate the Russians. You’re pointing at Brexit as an example of nationalism? How about Ukraine? Or Russia? Or Hungary or Poland? Even Germany now
Franz Ferdinand was expected to become emperor any day. He was also a personal friend of the Kaiser. Anyone who followed European politics knew who he was. He was also the guy who would probably have stopped Austria-Hangary from going to war.
I think what he means on not caring is they people didn't care that the man got killed, but do care about the holder of that position getting killed. As he later mentions, that latter part is why the Austrians and Germans think they can push diplomatically as hard as they do. It's why even in war today the idea of assassinating world leaders is fairly taboo. No on in power wants that box to be opened.
The crux of the problem with war, especially on that scale, is that mobilization is fairly rapid but not instant. It still takes a number of days or weeks (depending on what you count) to get units to their garrisons, equip them, and deploy them to their sectors. If you get get caught with your pants down, you might be knocked out before you have a chance to fight but if you preemptively mobilize you make others do the same since they have the same problem. It's an escalation spiral.
There had been many assassinations in the 30 or 40 years before 1914- two presidents of the US, the czar of Russia, the king of Italy, among others. None of those had led to war.
Wow! Europpean history, particularly that betweeen Britain, France and Germany is incredible!
Global and local cooperation, almost camaraderie, and savagery with chaos, with such a fine line between these sides
1:03:10 Future calling, that rings awfully true here at the end of February 2022.
Of course that could just be more propaganda of the ilk that was so prevalent in the First World War. Is there any proof of this? It’s funny that it wasn’t mentioned at all in the first 14 years he was in power. It’s also interesting that all the reports warning us of Ukrainian Nazis we got for 8 years are now being dismissed as nonsense
The mistake about the Panther is telling. He doesn't mention that Russia found, if it mobilised only against Austria it would be defenceless against Germany. Just a piece in the puzzle but it should be mentioned. Norman Stone argued the war happened just when Germany was at its maximum military strength relative to Russia, then rapidly expanding. Go figure. EDIT: OK we do get the Russian angle at the end but wrapped up in a silly anecdote. So... Britain is cynically exploiting the (to the Germans entirely necessary) invasion of Belgium to cynically support its ally France for the pettifogging reason that Northern France in German hands could be somehow disadvantageous to Britain. Oh and the Chotek marriage was morganatic because she wasn't royal, not because she wasn't a Hapsburg
What he didn’t mention was the absolute deluge of propaganda ordinary people subjected to, and in a in a similar way to today, many would have taken it at face value
I prefer Christopher Clark’s lecture but this is still good
That newspaper look like a video game message, when you get declared war on by everyone.
Er... afaics, there's one glaring error in the account (c17mins in) of the alliance structure pertaining to Britain with France and Russia, Which put very simply, did NOT actually exist. Certainly not as a formal defensive pact, as described here, obliging each of the parties to go to war to support another of their number in the event of it being attacked, either by Germany or any other power. Indeed, it's one major reason they're often referred to as the ENTENTE Powers.
Yes, Russia and France did have a formal alliance, dating from 1894, which obliged each to come to the other's aid if it was attacked, but NEITHER power ever concluded an equivalent deal with Britain which in 1914 was still under no formal obligation to help either of them
Our time is frightening similar to pre ww1.
Read Robert Graves 'Goodbye to All That.' The War could have been stopped in 1916. Robert blamed the Germans for starting the War. In 1916 he seems to blame the Allies for continuing it. He was German on his mother's side Irish on his Father's. Films I've seen show men going off to War happy as Larry from everyplace. Years before Bismark said the next Euopean War would come from 'some damn fool thing in the Balkans.'
'The German Wars 1914-1945' by D.J. Goodspeed does blame the French for World War I
You mean the French not accapting Germany had conqured part off France or France allying with Russia and Great britain after being conqured by Germany 1870?
It was very sound move by teh French as German military might and econoy was outgrowing the French ones big time.
Aftre WW1 France was very harsh on Germnay but before WW1 she did what she had to do with a hostile Germany.
4nyi.
........
...
.
..
...........
..
.
.m
..
.
.................
...............
..........
..
...................
. ....q
The German military was playing to its own sheet of music.
My favourite question to my kids about the outbreak of WW1 is "Why did a Serbian anarchist killing an Austro-Hungarian Crown Prince in Sarajevo in June 1914 cause Britain to declare war on Germany over a month later? How does that make sense?" My model is a 19th Century Aristocracy underestimating the technical change wrought by the Industrial Revolution, and not identifying with the working class to an extent that allowed them to appropriately evaluate the potential costs of the war. And we continue to have an aristocracy, although not a Royal aristocracy but a capitalist aristocracy. I'd be curious how much impact the assassination of Jean Jaurès had on the onset of the war, or whether at that point the Rubicon had been crossed (Edit: the assasination of Jean Jaurès was addressed at 46:30 - that will teach me to write a comment before the end of a video!). It's curious that the Schlieffen Plan and its adaptation by von Möltke that split the troops between two fronts is mentioned by the speaker as "a huge mistake", but the dynamic of the German military and the Kaiser that led to the disastrous application of the Schlieffen Plan doesn't get addressed.
Interestingly, the major stories on American newspapers in July 1914 were all about the Veracruz Crisis.
How do you have a discussion about the origins of the first world war and not discuss the Bosnian crisis of 1908? So many of the seeds that bore fruit in 1914 were planted in the Bosnian crisis. I'm stunned at the omission here
Great lecture, the teacher knows his subject well.
35:22 Jeff who ?
Right?
Being a Frenchman, I can only praise this lecture. It's thought provoking and well backed up by facts that go beyond clichés. Thanks.
Why because it lets your rich elite leaders off the hook? Watch Christopher Clark’s lectures, especially on France and 1914
Very interesting talk! Probably mostly right: most people didn’t care about the Balkans back in 1914, just as we only came into action in the 1990’s when Serbian and Croatian nationalists started murdering each other again on a grand scale. Europe wasn’t very interested in Ukraine either, they just let Putin do his thing (this lecture dates from before the Ukranian war of 2022). History does not repeat itself, but certain mistakes just keep coming back.
I think the German antagonism towards Russia in 1914 is a bit underestimated, though.
It would be interesting also to discuss why the peace initiatives after 1914 all failed: 1916 was the best possibility, yet all the belligerents (except Austria Hungary perhaps) thought they could win by force.
Just a nitpick but uhhh
Yeah, I can very much see the guns on the Panther
If what Michael Nieberg says is correct, then why did Germany invade Belgium and France and not part of Russia? One of my grandfathers served in shipping well prior to WW1 and told of the German sailors saying "We are going to get you, Tommy". I would suggest that, like the German first lieutenant, a number of the German people considered that they were above and superior to the rest of the population of Europe. Incidentally, he joined up and served throughout the whole of WW1, winning the Legion d'Honneur and turning down a commission in 1917, despite being married and having a child at the start.
a fascinating lecture, its aggravating how much of what i learned in school is either wrong or a half-truth
This is the problem with state mandated testing that require teachers to "teach to the Exam" rather than actually teach history through various lenses. Education systems are complex which is the reason teachers are limited in actually teaching the complexities of history.
Interesting, what I learnt stands up quite well. This is only one angle of it, of course. You need to watch a few different ones to get a real idea, historians usually have their own agendas and rarely agree
ehh I mean, people get PhDs in world war 1 and they still disagree with each other. i dont think its the school's fault for not knowing everything perfectly when even professional historians dont know.
The (historic) perspective that is offered here, stating that what happened in 1914,in the minds of people, only could be put to bed in 1989, is to me very insightful. For one, it connects the Korean an Vietnamese wars in a better, more meaningful context.
But... Russia, or the Russian political elite, thinks of itself to be in a position like Germany thought of themselves in 1918! And they invaded the Ukrain. So, the spirit of "I don't want to, but I have to" go to war? Flared up all over again. Very hotly.
@ 45:00. One of my grandfathers served onboard merchant shipping prior to WW1. He told us that the German sailors in Hamburg frequently said 'We are going to get you Tommy'. My other grandfather, who had served with Baden Powell in the 2nd South African War and was with military intelligence, said that the Germans had planned an invasion of Britain and wanted to take over the British Navy, prior to 1914. Apparently the British Navy had a new type of hull design and a new turbo-diesel engine that they wanted and they attempted to infiltrate from 1905 onwards. The feelings of the people in Berlin cannot be taken as representative of Germany as a whole, they were always left wing. WW1 was not accidental.
"Or people for a previous age commanding the present."
"All wars are bankers wars." There was some wisdom in those words. Think about it.
Particularly the American involvement. All to save Wall Street.
Seems stoic and cool but it’s demonstrably wrong. Keep watching stuff like this tho you might actually learn something.
Blackadder trivia: Baldrick's name is, by the way, Sodoff. He knows because when he went to play with other kids he said 'hello, I am Baldrick' and the kids replied 'yes, we know, sod off Baldrick' (badummm tsss). Alright, this is from other time periood, but I am sure that since Blackadder keeps the same name all series, why not Baldrick too :P
How did the invasion of Serbia turn out for Austria.
I would have liked to ask about how the different ethnic nationalities in the Balkans, in Austria-Hungary, and in western Tsarist Russia would have fared if war had been avoided. There was still a rising tide of nationalism and a yearning for independence among all these groups and areas.
Austria had Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians, Italians, Slovenians, Croatians, and Bosnians.
Hungary had Slovaks, Germans, Romanians, and Serbians.
Russian had Finns, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Ukrainians, and Romanians.
The Balkans had seen a bunch of small wars from 1911-12 or so over competing claims and borders.
The Russian Tsar was already on shaky ground even without WW1. If the Tsar fell to revolution, every ethnic minority wanting independence was going to make a run for the door.
Austria-Hungary was slowly becoming unmanageable with it's multi ethnic nationalities, and if one group bolted the rest were sure to follow.
It would be interesting to think and speculate how all that might have unraveled without the effects of the war.
"What happened in the Balkans had nothing to do with them" (the french people.) Well ... maybe not the public imagination. It certainly had a lot do to with French foreign policy, and the french political establishment was indeed *very* preoccupied with the Balkans, as they had been for years at that point ... Off to a pretty weak start ...
"I thought a fellow named Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry."
Ferdinand lived close to Prague at Konopiště chateau not in Wiena so they didn't need to go to Sarajevo.
Thank you for this great lecture and upload, a very engaged and eloquent lecturer with loads of interesting research and new information.
The introduction I don't get, however: how an (erroneous) narrative of the causes of the outbreak of the war is told because it tells how we learned from WW1? - when it's extended in a part two soon after with WW2? And when nationalism and imperialism are increasingly pervasive today?
Doesn't the (incomprehensive) German attack on Belgium and France show that military decision makers had other plans than the political diplomacy? (Maybe caused by a completely new arsenal of weapons and weapon systems?)
Kaiser Wilhelm II was immensely occupied by military and war and German supremacy and nationalism in the European populations in general in early 20th century was tremendous, although as a 'natural' state of affairs, each country believing itself to be supreme. These populations were apparently extremely easy to recruit for nationalistic causes, estimated on the huge popularity the war has at the beginning.
I agree. Nationalism is rife throughout Europe today, just look at Ukraine, Poland, Hungary and Russia. Imperialism is still huge, NATO expansion is just American imperialism driven by the oil and arms industry, Chinese belt and road imperialism, french imperialism in Africa. Militarism is definitely on the rise, the Far East is arming up, the USA is always increasing arms spending, Russia has been and now so is Europe. And alliances are clearly still a thing, NATO and Russia/China
Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the heir presumptive to the throne of Austria-Hungary. This point seems lost. He has some clout. Most humans do not like people of this caliber killed and normally notice.
The presenter overstated his case by saying "No one gave a crap" about the Archduke, but he wasn't wrong about any of the details. Franz Ferdinand was constantly disrespected by his uncle the Emperor and the Vienna Court, and his funeral was a decidedly understated affair with no turnout from other European royalty.
Fascinating lecture, but he is wrong on a few points. First, SMS Panther was a gunboat, albeit lightly armed, and had participated in the bombardment of Venezuela previously. Second, and this one is huge, there were quite a few people who "cared" about the death of Franz Ferdinand and Sophie. There were riots that targeted Serbian shops and homes immediately after the murders. Franz Ferdinand and Sophie were regarded as a "Cinderella" couple because they had married for love regardless of the consequences with the royal court. There was outrage in the general populace in Austria Hungary despite the attitude in the royal court.
What happened in the Balkans had nothing to do with France and the war...? Objection - France reinforced without need but with intention Russia's backing the Serbs against a participation in the state sponsored murders in Sarajevo. This blunt blocking of Austria-Hungary's - justifiable - demands escalated the tense situation into a shooting war between Serbia and the double monarchy. Russia in its wish to compensate for her defeat in Asia and in search of means to stabilize its overcome aristocratic system mobilized for war. Germany sided its ally and France would take side against Germany, as well as Great Britain. Christopher Clark describes a situation when French officials showed 'unconcealed joy' for they finally got their chance of revenge for the bitter defeat in 1870/71, with losses of territories and followed by a degrading crowning ceremony of a German Emperor in the French hall of mirrors in Versailles. France escalated the situation over the beginning of the 20th century, they came to terms with every other power, GB, Italy, Spain in the Moroccan crises, but kept the Germans off the table. French revanchism and its claim to reinstate the former hegemony over central Europe, reinforced by the fear of falling back against an economically faster growing Germany - Thucidides Trap (Graham Allison) - constituted the determining factors initiating a European conflagration from a tense diplomatic crisis. Imperial Germany is not totally off the hook, because of its 'blanc check', but its share in the war guilt is secondary at best. Christopher Clark - 'Sleepwalkers', or - th-cam.com/video/dx_V4NAUuW8/w-d-xo.html
There is something ironic.
Christopher Clark in his book clealy indicates he doesn't want to partcipate in a blame game about 'who is the most responsible for the start of the great war'. Actually he shows that it was more a common effort by everybody to go into that madness than pointing out some countries... Maybe you should do the same.
@cpawp, Indeed, there is no such thing as a good excuse. Politics is violence and political governments are the bane of humanity; they are not Christian. And then people vote for their tyrants. Go figure. Voting is an act of violence!
The French change of strategic thinking in the early 1900’s when they told the Russian’s they would back them in a dispute with Austria/Germany in the Balkan’s is the ‘watershed’ moment.
There is a lot of good research in this, speed seems one and is reminiscent of A J P Taylor. However to me there is difference between what the public think and why the German military wanted war. They were worried about military parity in future years. This was a good excuse. This is mentioned in the q and a and he supports this but doesn't mention this enough in the lecture. Monke thought he could smash the french quickly. He was so confident he mistakenly reduced the strength of the push through Belgium. Britain had an agreement to protect the french ports. I totally agree that the monarchs were days behind events.
If you read 1879 Jules Vernes novel
The Begum's Fortune, you will notice a strain of nationalism and anti German sentiment. There were people un France who wanted Alsace-Lorraine back and revenge. House of Habsburg was in crisis, crown prince Rudolph suicide before Franz Ferdinand was killed, so it was a succession problem. Even if Konrad von Kotzendorf didn't plan to attack Serbia, there will be a problem in Austria and a eas for Austrian succesin would have followed. The main crisis was in East there the changes in border were more significant
never let a crisis go to waste: covid19, eh????
its Era not Error.
This is part of the text of the telegram sent by German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg to the German Ambassador in Vienna on 6 July 1914, the famous BLANK CHECK! Here are the two last paragraphs:
"Finally, as far as concerns Serbia, His Majesty, of course, cannot interfere in the dispute now going on between Austria-Hungary and that country, as it is a matter not within his competence.
The Emperor Francis Joseph may, however, rest assured that His Majesty will faithfully stand by Austria-Hungary, as is required by the obligations of his alliance and of his ancient friendship"
-Bethmann-Hollweg
Unfortunately, the first paragraph is never mentioned, clearly the 'blank check' did not include fighting side by side in Serbia, that omission made the blank checks given to Serbia by Russia, to Russia by France, to France by England and to Belgium by England just as consequential as the German one to Austria, if not more but in the end, none of this mattered, Germany was going to be blamed and crushed no matter what, the Palmerston, Edward VII, Millner, Asquith and Eden of this world, would arrange for that, Palmerston forced neutrality on Belgium, Eden took advantage of it, he didn't have to, he chose to.
Lord Cecil Rhodes ..rothchild...lord milner..
No.mention?
hehe @ 47:46 Neilberg says, "Poincare sits Jaures down", then Poincare showed Jaures the message traffic. When I first heard this, I thought Neiberg said, "Poincare: 'Sit your ass down'". As if Poincare said to Jaures, "Sit your ass down" then showed him the message traffic. lol
And I thought Furries are a phenomenon of the 21st century.
jack stacks....ha ha nice break from 330 Fighter Squadron Hawg Heaven
39:00 Very prospective on Ukraine 2022.
Indeed. NATO support for Ukraine is like German support for Austria or Russian support for Serbia
In fact NATO have Ukraine a blank cheque, quite literally
The Triple Entente
The Society of the Elect made ententes with France and Russia for a war on Germany. The alliances were secret, unknown to the public, Parliament and most of the Cabinet.
The British had secret “non-binding military staff conversations” with Belgium going back to 1906. In 1911 Belgium collaborated with France and Great Britain on how to defend Belgium’s “neutrality” from a German invasion. Both offensive and defensive alliances are a violation of neutrality.
Being now in Madagascar, I can tell you that everyone here thinks Madagascar would be better off had it remained a British colony. It had been but BRITAIN WANTED Zanzibar
Guys like this kept me for years from learning the simple truth about how, who and why WWI started. Four countries. Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Serbia. All monarchies.This guy more or less of necessity got around to that simple fact after much piddling around about France England Belgium etc. At the end all four monarchies were destroyed. In the case of Russia literally.
In the last few years of reading and listening to very intelligent people speak about the death of Franz Ferdinand, I'm more and more convinced that the Austro-Hungarian generals and possibly even the Emperor Franz Joseph himself may have know, even to the most minimal extent, that there was a plot to murder him and they saw it as an opportunity to not only cement their dominance in the Balkans via war with Serbia but to also rid the monarchy of the most polarizing and what they saw as a "negative" impact the Hapsburg family, in that his marriage to Sophie Chotek was a scandal which could destroy the monarchy.
“Nobody wants Russians mobilizing on their border” - 2019 Mr. Neiberg 38:59
It is bit odd to mention EU so often in relation to ww1 since EU didnt emerge as a result of ww1 in the first place but rather after second world war where it was considered a valid strategy to try to heal the rifts between germany and france that had occurred as a result of two world wars. Also if you try to claim that nations like England, France, Germany and so on werent fighting over land in Africa which lead to increasing arms race you really have to bring strong evidence to counter those arguments. Also it is probably true that no one cared about Frans Ferdinands death that much but it was a good excuse for Germany to declare a war for which it had planned for a long time.
WW1 leads to WW2, which directly leads to the Coal and Steel community, which developed into the EU. C&S was explicitly created to ensure the French and German economies were tied together to prevent war.
Regarding Africa, there is no evidence because there were no wars. France, Britain Portugal, Germany, and Italy never fought any wars in Africa against each other aside from the World Wars. No territory in Africa lead to the War occuring. All incidents in Africa lead to a reduction of tensions.
In fact, that was the entire point of the Berlin Conference - to dole out parcels of land before a war had to decide ownership, unlike the Colonies in the Americas which were formed over centuries of warfare.
It's also silly to say Germany took advantage of Ferdinand when it took months for the crisis to evolve into a war and they only began mobilising after Russia. The best explanation is that the German military took advantage of a deteriorating situation at the last second, not creating one, much like every other country. Both Nicky and Willy acknowledge in their telegrams by the end that neither wants to proceed but both cannot undue the trains being pushed forward.
His whole premise is: let us take official statements of UK, France, Russia, etc at a face value and rethink history in this way. “Alliances are made for peace, no one wants Africa or more territories, young people do not war,” etc…. A hundred years from now one can rethink in this way the Iraq War of 2003- “textbooks will tell you that this was an invasion for economic and strategic purposes, but actually they went in to plant “the seed of democracy in the Middle East”.
As a European I found this whole idea of disregarding milliards firsthand accounts of politicians, military and business men, diplomats etc ridiculous. He will stand out in a conference and sell some books and promote his academic career but on an intellectual level his argument does not deserve much attention.
my personal TLDR:
Never in the history of history was there ever a conflict with a singular point of origin. After the dust of conflict settles, the winner writes a history book, to justify his doings to posterity. The End.
If you see a scientist claiming otherwise, he/she/xe lies for whatever reason.
Had there been no naval race perhaps UK and Germany could have co-operated to restrain Austria. Misunderstandings were more likely as a legacy of the race, and we see a consequence in 1938.
I think this undersells the role of France. Poincare was lying to Jaures, he had just gone on a visit to Russia where he had become fully aware of the Austro-German ultimatum and assured the Russians of French support if they backed Serbia.
Wrong, the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia became known after Poincare left St. Petersburg, in fact the ultimatum was sent to Serbia when Poincare was on board a French battleship in the middle of the Baltic Sea.
By the way, I read that myth time and time again but people who push for that narrative don't even know how the French Third Republic worked which makes that myth quite laughable.
Poincare as President of France was in a similar poisiton of the king of the United Kingdom, he held no powers, so he could have said whatever he wanted to the Tsar or anybody else, it didn't matter.
So, what you were saying that Jean Jaures was about to be in the exact same political position as Benito Mussolini was in 1914-1915. Funny how Socialism (doesn't) works, uh.
The SMS Panther had two 10.5 cm cannons. It actually used those guns to sink a ship near Haiti in 1902. I think Mr. Neiberg's own picture shows the cannons on the deck of SMS Panther. There are several other highly dubious statements he makes in the first 20 minutes of his presentation. Mr. Neiberg is entitled to his own opinions but not his own "facts."
I like this guy's take on things but I am not entirely sure what his main point is or even if he has one. Maybe it is don't start wars because they are far harder to end than to begin and they tend to do no side any good unless you have lived in America, for the last 150 years. The people instinctively desire peace and most of our politicians do as well. To my mind, all logic dictates that war should never happen especially in this modern world of ours but they still do, and Russia/Ukraine is a timely example of a war that logically should not be happening at all.
Therefore I strongly suspect that there are elements afoot that historians seem to always leave out of their calculations. When something seems to make no sense, it is not necessarily nonsense it is just that you simply don't know something of great importance or put another way, are not aware of all the relevant facts of the matter and maybe you never will be? This is often where conspiracy theorists take over where historians have failed to go because historians prefer to back up their theories with acts such as written documents rather than supposition speculation or logical deduction.
What really made Putin decide to invade Ukraine when such an action could never have ended well in Russia's interests? Yes maybe they will end up holding Crimea and a few bits of territory, but this is the best they could have achieved, and at an already ridiculously high cost. If his reason was to somehow hold back NATO then this is the very last thing that will end up happening. NATO will end up with more members a greater budget and closer to Russia than it has so far been.
Will we ever know the full story? I doubt it. Even if we did somehow stumble on the correct reason or storyline, how could we ever know that we had for sure? Who is going to confirm this to us, and even if someone did could we trust them? Who knows what really goes on in someone like Putin's head, maybe even Putin himself is not entirely sure? Maybe he just has a bad hair day or received deliberately bad advice or a piece of disinformation from what he had good reason to believe was a highly trusted source?
"when such an action could never have ended well in Russia's interests?"
For that to ring with any sort of truth, you would first have to show that Russia believed at any stage that they thought it wasn't going to end well.
Strange narrative, nobody wanted the war, but it kinda happened due to a series of unfortunate events. In fact, it went so easily because all participants knew it would happen, it was a question of time. Everybody had a valid plan for the war, and the enemies were known. Wars that involve empires are imperialistic wars driven by interest groups and not by common Joes. Also, singling out 1914-1989 as period war is strange. Why not start with Napoleonic Wars or even earlier?
Or you can push it back to 865 when the west and east frankish kingdoms made a deal, in which the French pretty much gave Alsace Lorraine to Germany for ever. 5 years later they changed their mind, sent an army and reconquered it, violating the treaty. Ever since then, the Germans only tried to restore the borders we peacefully agreed upon.
I was waiting for the actual reason the war started the way it started until the second to last question. France and Germany knew that they had to jump the gun, mobilize and start the military plans because if one waits a few days to try the diplomatic options, they lose. That is the cause of the war. WIthout that, it doesn't happen.
He debunked everyone on imperialism and nationalism being the cause of the war. Then he says that 2 things were expected to be the reason for war: war between France and Germany along Alsace-Lorraine or Germany and Russia. Problem is, he said no one cared about Alsace Lorraine or even wanted France to go to war. How can he reconcile the indefference in France with the expectation to go to war on the same place they care less. As of Russia and Germany to fight when no one cared or even knew where Serbia is. He contradicts himself a lot! He says the imperial powers cares less about Afrixa and even Morocco was just small glitch then he says that negociations went on for a year and when it was all said and done, they were glad they missed war by a whisker. If it wasn t important why negociate for a whole year? He even added 2 geberals that met while drawing a map and chose to have wine...if it was a small thing, how come they couldn t solve it on site. He even added that they were heated negociations in Europe before they came to an agreement. Why a heated agreement if the colonies meant nothing. This guy is just confused
Agree, his letting his political views shape thr historical narrative
Very interesting! My relatives where French socialists. You are dead right they where anti-war but not against defending using military at all when attacked... The militarism shows itself onky when the war starts. Once the fighting starts people are not against a just cause fight and as usual all think their cause is just (but yours is not).
The will to honor alliances and keep old plans is stronger than public opinion. And it can get catastrophic results. Look at Russia spring-summer 1917! The old plan to humiliate and fight with Srbia made the Austrians go way to far. The idea to look strong and show support for the brothers made Russia mobilise easily. The fear of two front war made Germany go west and into Belgium in response to a Russian mobilisation. France felt obliged to help Russia (Russia was not attacked by any means).... Fear does lead to poor decisions :(
59:31 something to think about in 2020
No one want’s Russians mobilising on their boarder ohh boy
This seems like a really weird talk so far. He claims imperialism made peace easier and then says how austria-hungary and germany's imperial ambitions planned for an began the war... of course imperial powers will fight over land and use whatever pretext they can to go to war. that's how empires behave. they used diplomacy before, yes, but as he said, only about things which didnt matter like colonies in africa which didnt seem profitable anyway.
I think MAIN is an okay explanation, but of course it's always more complicated. The specific people in power who made those decisions, the public sentiments which didn't resist war or even propelled it. And of course militarism and the arms race which made the massive devastation possible. Margaret McMillon argues that nationalism was indeed a big force, and even international socialists who planned a general strike to oppose war, abandoned that plan and reverted to nationalism and fought each other when war broke out.
Edit: yeah, he seems to be contradicting himself?? he tries to debunk MAIN by saying each point individually didn't cause the war (for example he later said nationalism wasn't a cause enough on its own). But of course the MAIN explanation is that ALL those were factors. And he himself explains why each one was a factor... the militaries wanted and planned for war and caused it due to imperial ambition. once war was declared, nationalism kicked in and the populace was mobilized. and the alliance system was what made germany have to plan to invade france bc of an alliance with russia. so idk how he can then conclude MAIN is not legitimate?
But the Europeans never wanted a world war. THE LOCAL WAR BETWEEN AUSTRIA AND SERBIA WAS LOCAL. But even the conflict between France and Russia and Belgium and Germany was local. The world war started after Britain had declared war on Germany because of Belgium - even the Belgium conflict was local.
Right, so the whole of Europe are in a local war and as soon as the Brits step in to defend Belgium it’s suddenly a World war and all their fault
I think because when Britain got involved their literal-world-spanning empire got involved
WW3, dance of the furries 🐶🐷🤡
This didn’t age well.
I thought the 1st world war was a culmination of the Moroe Doctrine, government debt, and the swap from coal to oil to fuel warships. Basically over money and resources.
This version sounds like a school yard fight where two kids dare each other to strike first so they defender can avoid reprimand.
Why isn't anyone asking why the kids wanted to fight in the first place? I think that is the real frustration with text books.
It had less to do with monarchy than monetary policy in my humble opinion.
Great talk though!
th-cam.com/video/PcMcWuK1cAE/w-d-xo.html
"The problem is not that the (Western European Countries) are spending too much on defence. The problem is that (North-Western European Countries) are spending less than 2% of GDP on defence." Er... The problem for whom, exactly? From who's perspective? Not the Europeans. And then he goes on to give France as an example of spending loads on defence, pre 1914. That isn't a reason for war in itself, but does account for the vast loss of men, resources, international heritage and human happiness when war came. When everyone around you prepares for war, the temptation and the casualties mount.
Interestingly, this man, whose lectures I normally enjoy, talks a little differently when in Europe - it's the same thing really, but with little admissions like, 'I'm not sure what happens here but where I come from.'
Do you see? What problem?
5:12 this image is literally propaganda. Bismarck did not wear that uniform that days and if he'd done so, it would've been seen as an affront to the Kaiser...
So what is your point?
It doesn't really matter if this isn't a photographic image of reality. What matters is how people saw this act in 1914 - Pretty much like in this picture.
Like all academics, this guy can't stop bowing and scraping to the silly instance on the importance of socialism. And , they're always arguing..."What I argue" "What Smith argues" So glad I got far away from this bunch that all talk the same, all think the same, are always referred to "what I say in THE BOOK."
Nobody teaches that the assassination of archduke was the actual cause, just a pretetext. This guy is focusing on the trees, not the forest.
All of my history classes from school and college covered the assassination of the archduke as the cause. That has only been corrected in the last few years.
@@Knirin same here. This was a very interesting lecture for me
Man's confused. Pro German biases all over the board even though it's meant to be subtly passed along. He tried to present his version of history from a non-objective perspective and failed. The conclusions he arrives at are nonsensical, and leaves one perplexed. Some of the authors he gave very little credits to actually did great jobs.
so where are your peer reviewed publications to be found?