Who Started World War I: Crash Course World History 210
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2024
- In which John Green teaches you WHY World War I started. Or tries to anyway. With this kind of thing, it's kind of hard to assign blame to any one of the nations involved. Did the fault lie with Austria-Hungary? Germany? Russia? Julius Caesar? One thing we can say for sure is that you can't blame the United States of America for this one. Woohoo! Well, you can hardly blame the US.
Crash Course is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at / crashcourse
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashcourse
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Instagram - / thecrashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
![เปิดบ้าน พี่ตูน Bodyslam หลังใหม่คนแรก ที่ภูเก็ต l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/flFwcmyDQSk/mqdefault.jpg)
My whole WHAP class had a huge debate and came to the conclusion that whoever made the sandwich that Gavrilo Princip was eating was to blame. While he was eating the sandwich, he looked out the window and saw Franz Ferdinand after MANY failed assasination attempts. If the sandwich had been better, he wouldn't have looked up.
penguiatiator except sandwich story is fake
--from Serbian (me)
*gasp
ApceHistory You lied to me :(
www.history.com/news/the-assassination-of-archduke-franz-ferdinand-100-years-ago
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria#Shot_dead
www.history.com/this-day-in-history/archduke-franz-ferdinand-assassinated
penguiatiator actually he came to the conclusion to assassinate Franz while smoking Persian Tobacco
stop with pseudohistory
"And just as a general rule, it's hard to play the blameless victim when you're moving all of your troops to the border. Hey, why are you here again, Putin?" That line aged well.
LOL - blaming Caesar for WW-1 still has me laughing. Great presentation!
If the Romans had conquered Germania, France and Germany or maybe all of continental Europe may have become a unified entity. Especially if Latin and Catholicism had replaced the tribal languages and religions.
World War 3 needs a better script and director. I wonder who are they going to cast this time?
Probably Michael Bay!
Trump
Maxwell Destito Lmao
Maxwell Destito well fyck your right
Maxwell Destito Oh my God, you might be right.
"The Swiss didn't start wars!"
Meanwhile, in Europa Universalis 4...
+Mallock Did they win?
+Jay Rohwer Or Victoria 2 :b
+Jay Rohwer How about that Swiss lakes achievement? No coastal provinces?
Never gave it a shot, lol.
Mallock Wait wait wait... They beat _France_? Man, that must be embarrassing for France.
In fact, that should be a thing in EU4, if a small power beats a larger power the effects of prestige are a larger, while if a larger power defeats a smaller power the effects are smaller
My great-grandfather died in WW1, my grandfather died in WW2, hope my country will be smart enough so that I don't have to die in WW3.
Yeah, my Grandfather died in Auschwitz. He fell from a guard tower.
My great-grandfather was a WWI pilot. Believe it or not, but he survived the "Flying Coffin"!
My Great-Great-Grandfathers both fought in WW1. One of them was killed in a gas attack, and another completely wiped out a German gunning position single handedly and was awarded a medal, and then died of old age.
My great-grandfather died in WW1, too. He either died in France, or in Italy.
My great-grandfather survived first,second Balkan wars and WW1, my grandfather survived WW2 he is still alive, he has 92 years now, hope my country will be smart enough and enters the WW3 so i could survive.
Fun fact: parts of Switzerland stayed neutral during the swiss civil war.
lel
You can't say they aren't commited
this year on 11 of nov at 11:00 am will mark the centennial anniversary of WW I sooo be ready
So they are neutral even when they are at war
Yodel-Ay-Hee-Hoo
lul
Have you ever considered doing an “Advanced Course?” It seems like you could’ve easily gone more in-depth but didn’t because high school students are your intended audience.
Love the channel and your work!
Agreed!
If you want an extremely in depth look you should check out Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History. It’s like 15 hours long and was probably the best and most researched thing about WW1.
@@marquisdelafayette1929 I was about to recommend that myself. But yeah the first episode of "Blue Print for Armageddon" goes highly in depth on the causes and context of the beginning of WW1
I agree i wanna get a A++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ on my exam
Why don`t you guys try reading a book..Maybe?
Can't believe this is 8 years old. The 'why are you here again, Putin?' joke is proving timeless.
Say what you will about the Germans, but they definitely had the best uniforms ;)
No Canada did. Sorry
+Gabe Grothaus You want badass uniforms? Look no further than the Knights Templar from the Crusades.
+Communistbaconeater Canada didn't even exist back then LOL
+Ninja Turtle Hmmm Canada didn't exist during WW1...I'm sure Canada has existed since 1867...
It was a british colony
Go look up Canada's independance
"We'll just behave really recklessly." *Shows a picture of George Bush*
Interesting... sort of like how the US has given Israel a "blank check" huh? /le sigh/
Yup.
Both countries are doing despicable things, I'm not on either side. I just want the US to stop clapping and cheering the bully on (and supplying them with tanks and attack helicopters).
You can point to numerous relationships between nations throughout history where a "blank check" type relationship did not condone reckless behavior. The fact that you have a bone to pick with Israel doesn't give you the right to paint them in the most negative light possible. Paint them in the most realistic light, or don't paint at all.
MrLgmhandler You can't claim there's an objectively true realistic light. We all view countries from our own perspectives. I'd be willing to bet a Joe Nobody in Palestine would have a very realistic very negative view of Israel. As a person from an outside perspective I think it is important to know the many different perspectives on an issue before I take a stance, if I feel it is my place to take a stance at all. Telling people "don't paint at all" is suppressing a perspective and doing the entire discussion an injustice.
Mary Harner You missed the point of what I was saying if you think I support not painting at all. I respect multiple perspectives and incomplete perspectives as long as they recognize that they are. Selling an obviously one-sided point of view as the whole truth without question like the OP was doing is destructive and shouldn't be done.
Anyone else here during the Coronavirus, and not History Class?
Just me? huh...
ENVYLESS yes! Corona time!
@@ememem2952YEAH! Corona time! How's the online learning?
@Asura Khæñ tbh i got an assignment due at in like 40mins on this so thats why im here
envy: Nope. No longer a student, and been watching this stuff for years.
yes
Swiss reel = best 5 seconds of this Crash Course channel.
word 😅
i'm swiss😊😊
+iluvaustralia me too lol 😅
yum swiss rolls>idk why i say this... alot..
“-the alliance system was certainly important and I’m sure you’ll be discussing it in your classes”.....imagine having no classroom or school because of the Caronavirus
am i the only one who replayed the swiss montage a million times
+Rajeera Geleta nope me too
no
You are certainly not alone
I am Swiss...
we're the mongols of europe. Except that we're not that belligerent.
I believe Austro-Hungary has to responsability of strating the war, but the russian mobilisation leads me to think that Russia would probably have found a way to go to war anyways. The great blame, for me, is on these two. Germany was dragged into the war by their aliance and a misunderstanding, and had to attack France because of the strong franco-russian alliance against Germany. Germans are however entirely responsible for invading Belgium and for getting Great Britain into the war, by that act.
Can't say if Great Britain would have found another reason to join though.
Most likely not. The british even promised to stay neutral some days before the outbreak of the war and even offered the germans to serve as an intercessor between germany and the french to prevent a world war. That was what lead the germans to march through belgium, they thought the british would not join. Of course everything went the other way because of Grey and his support from the conservatives, but it was still not unlikely that the british would stay neutral.
***** You're probably right. However, the british saw the germans as a threat, and if the germans created great troubles in trade by sinking ships, like they did in America, I would have expected GB to eventually join, basically the same way the USA joined. My opinion, however.
Of course we can't be sure about that. But we know that the british government was mostly pro german, there was just a small group aroung Grey (leader of the foreign office) which really advocated for war against germany. Thus i think it wasn't that likely that the UK joined in.
***** Ok. My History class diverge on those relations, saying that GB was peaceful against Germany before that war, but saw them as a major threat to their naval power. Knowing that, all I say is that this war would have been an opportunity for GB.
The British liberal government at the time did not want war (the PM cried when he had to declare war). Britain was actually close to a civil war in Ireland over the Home Rule crisis, as conservatives such as Bonar Law had promised to support Ulster Unionists in armed rebellion,(I suppose its ironic that entering ww1 ended the threat of civil war, because unionists wanted to show how loyal and brave they were, and nationalists wanted to show that unionists and nationalists could get along). I've gone off topic. Tbh I doubt ww1 would have lasted half as long as it did without the British, the Russian war effort was, to be frank, pathetic, and I don't think France would have been able to withstand Germany on its own. Maybe the threat of a German super state running across Europe would have been enough to make Britain join.
In 1881, Serbian prince Milan signed a Secret Convention with Austria-Hungary. Serbia basically became Austria-Hungary's bitch, so Milan could crown himself a King. Serbia couldn't sign agreements with anyone without Austria-Hungary's permission. In 1903 Milan's son was overthrown and killed, and Petar Karađorđević became King. He started trading with other European countries without Austria-Hungary's permission. Austria-Hungary imposed sanctions and started a trade war called Pig War. Pig War just strengthened Serbia's trade relations with the rest of Europe, and confirmed its economic independence. Since then Austria-Hungary wanted to start a war with Serbia and bring it back under its control. That is why Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina (which had a Serb majority at that time). That's why Serbia was forced to retreat from Albania. That is why the ultimatum was so harsh. So even if the Archduke wasn't assassinated war would eventually happen.
+A random person On the Internet en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1910_population_census_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina
+Александар Марић Yeah and the Serbs only account for 43% which is not an overall majority.
It says orthodox christians, not Serbs, considering that a lot of muslims considered themselves as Serbs.
Александар Марић
And many Greek Orthodox considered themselves Croats. But in any event your source doesn't support your claim it actually contradicts it.
Orthodox Croats? I don't think so.
I'd say paranoia is to blame for the start of WW1
Yeah pretty much. Everybody wanted a reason to attack someone else.
Including allied.cause after the war germany have to give 8 trillion, cannot have tanks,cannot have airforce, and manny german were killed in ruhr,germany by france army or bullies by brits citizen that visit germany. The brits can literally pick any german they want to bullies in germany and no one can really do anything
high tensions lead to paranoia which leads to rash decisions
Nonsense. By then, it'd been British policy for over 200 years to spark off such global wars periodically in order to kill their competition. They've always done that.
WW1 was the natural conclusion to the inevitable rise of Germany as the supreme European power as successor to the Western Roman Empire.
@@lokelong1292 oversimplified
I started wwI. My bad, didn't know it would turn out like that.
Don't worry I caused ww2 20 years later so it's ok pal
Don't be sad because I started the entire Cold War,Most event were held by me,but I swear to god,I am not the one who assassinate Mr.JKF.
Its okay, I started the roman empire, which started a lot more wars. I also am about to start WW3 because i'm going to give some american with anger issues a really bad sandwich and he'll take out his anger on Kim Jong Un when his driver makes a wrong turn to a sushi shop...
Its ok, who has not started a war or two in their lifetime.
Dude wtf. I mean, I might be the one who actually sank the USS Maine in Cuba, but come on.
The Putin jokes aged like fine wine
Discuss in the comments section?! Yeah, that's always constructive - nasty posts in the comments section is what led to Cuba's involvement in WWI!
Captain Bud Sturguess loooool XD
mongols: were the exception!
Swiss: hold my hot chocolate
Why are the Brits always move into the wars? They could stay on their island and drink tea.
they're allies to the other countries so they can't just let it happen
It is Britain's prerogative to make certain that no single country controls all of europe, for our own safety, hence we are the Arbiter of Europe, whether we like or not.
how about Brexit though
Aditya Srinivasulu You understand that it was a referendum, I personally voted to stay but alas 52% voted the other way.
Well, the whole "island" thing is kind of the issue there. You know, "Brittania rules the waves" and all that? Britain relied on trade as its lifeblood. It was in their interest to act on behalf of their most important trade partners -- or against the competition, in the case of the Anglo-Dutch Wars.
what makes germany different from any other colonizing country? everyone waged wars for their own benefits.
Scapegoat... And the Versailles-treaty assigned all blame for the war to Germany. And as he said, they did start WW2, making it easy for people to get on board with the idea of them being the soul reason the first one started as well.
+Stratega Except Germany and the UK weren't enemies up until WW1.
Ottifant UK did, however, ally up with their ancient rival France because of Germany's increadible effectiveness both economically and militarily. The rapid development of the German navy deteriorated their relations even further. That is not to say they were enemies, just that they weren't the best of friends.
+TheVeryBest Technically incorrect. The Brits had a non-aggression pact with France and Russia. The British at the beginning of the 20th Century had one ally, and one ally only, and that was to protect its more far flung possession: Japan.
However, there was an arms and naval race between Germany and Britain from 1912 on wards as I recall, which was due to the Germans stated intentions to create a navy either as strong, or more powerful than that of Britain - which obviously the British did not like - along with the fact the Germans did catch up with the British remarkably quickly, even if they did in the end only fight one naval battle before being holed up after Jutland.
Grort The reason Great Britain joined the war was because Germany invaded Belgium, but if you want to be technical you can't forget that Great Britain and Portugal have been allies since 1386. So the whole "one ally only" is simply not true. They also maintained relations with the US because they knew they had no hope of keeping a supreme naval influence in the new world without their help.
They were also part of the triple entante, which weren't technically an alliance. So you're correct in that sense. However, as they were a member of the triple entante they would probably have gone to war to defend the other two members if they should come under severe threat. And we both know that that was the case.
In which John Green teaches you WHY World War I started. Or tries to anyway. With this kind of thing, it's kind of hard to assign blame to any one of the nations involved. Did the fault lie with Austria-Hungary? Germany? Russia? Julius Caesar? One thing we can say for sure is that you can't blame the United States of America for this one. Woohoo! Well, you can hardly blame the US.
John, I dont know if you'll read this but I'll give it a shot anyway. I believe that Serbia had a defensive alliance with Russia, which is why Russia mobilized when Serbia was attacked. That point about harvest season and mobilizing later doesnt really make any sense, because why WOULDN'T Russia mobilize asap to gain an advantage over the Austrians?
adugan22 Mustering takes time?
Dan Carlin does a podcast called Hardcore History and his most recent series is about WWI called "Blueprint for Armageddon." Did you know that Gavrilo Princip's assassination of Franz Ferdinand was kind of by freak chance? Princip was in a radical organization that tried to assassinate Ferdinand during a parade by throwing a grenade into his car, which Ferdinand grabbed and threw back out. A while afterwards, Ferdinand's driver took a wrong road on their way to the magistrate's office, put his car in reverse to turn around, and the car stalled directly outside of a sandwich shop Princip was in. Seeing his opportunity, jerk shot Franz and his wife and caused World War 1. >=|
The Comedian (i get all my news and history from comedians--I'm a much happier person as a result) named Robert Newman did a show called "history of oil" that describes WW1 as a push for Britain to prevent Germany from getting access to Oil in Iraq, as both of their navies had just switched from Coal to Oil, and resource access was going to become important. It is an interesting alternative narrative.
This has nothing to do with this topic which is very interesting but I love that swiss clip. You should use it more often.
The Putin jokes aged like wine.
😿
7:00 Oh gosh, those borders on that map are so horrible...
Actually is no THAT bad, its just a representative image, not too far away
Rafael Tavarez It could be worse, yes, but it's inaccurate. Especially the border between Russia, Germany, and Austria in Poland.
It's actually pretty accurate.
***** at that time there was no Poland. It was partitioned between the kingdoms of Russia, Prussia and Austria. The map depicted is an approximation.
LOL it hurts my eyes! :D
You should do a video about who started the Vietnam War! oh wait...
You say that as if everyone in the U.S. didn't already know the U.S. escalated the Vietnam War into an unjustified proxy war. Even H.W. Bush had to say about the First Gulf War that "This will not be another Vietnam."
Yea, next time let people slay other people just because they are intelegent..
i am sorry so you think a aggressive communist Vietnam invading a democratic free Vietnam is okay and the USA is wrong for trying to stop a aggressive USSR supported Vietnam from invading a free nation? If so you fucking disgust me and would have millions of people live under the authoritarian leadership of communism, where they will starve be killed and oppressed for many years. Go fuck your self, All 4 of my grand parents where put into camps and killed in Vietnam after the USA pulled out, you fucking sicken me.
***** You clearly don't know Vietnam if you think all we did was bomb a rainforest filled with innocent people. You can rightly argue that the US was overly paranoid over communism during the Cold War (just like the Soviets to capitalism) but that doesn't change the facts of what happened there. We saw communism, at least geo-politically, as the greater evil and it was in many ways.
We have a pretty good idea of how Vietnam started so you aren't being particularly edgy or nuanced here. You can earn your stripes if you can rationally discuss the why and the outcome.
Am I the only one who had to raise the volume to max to get normal sound for John's voice? And then the music at the end seemed to drown out his voice so I couldn't hear what he was saying. (Not that I cared, because it was only the credits.)
No you're not. Looks like they messed up with the sound mixing in this one :/
agreed, especially the music in the end was way too loud. It almost seemed comical
Jump scaring Swiss.
The world needs a good war. World has been at peace too long and humanity is growing weak.
Doc
I hope that's just a bad taste joke and not your actual opinion
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as Germany agreed to *protect* Austria-Hungary when Russia struck a war (which they would definitely do if Serbia did, because Russia was Serbia's ally), THEN Austria-Hungary wrote that bullying ultimatum to Serbia and Serbia refused, that led to Russia's declaration of war; which was why Germany was then involved. So I don't know why people say the fault's on Germany, because it was Austria-Hungary who forced Serbia to say yes to the letter when Serbia shouldn't be blamed to say no.
The Rench couldn't take Alsace-Lorraine from us if they didn't blame Germany.
Exactly. I believe that people should go deeper into Balkan/Central European politics from the early 20th century to see what actually happened. Basically, Austria-Hungary tried to colonise Balkan countries after it helped them break free from the Turks. This happened because Austria was left out when other European countries divided overseas colonies. Croatia was already part of Austria-Hungary, then the Austrians annexed Bosnia and Serbia was to be next. They just waited for an excuse to attack. It was the matter of time at that point.
You've toataly right
but didnt serbia kill some austrian leader or something like that?
Luna Jahovic
Like the terrorists.
You can blame pretty much anyone for WWI... Except for the microbes.
zogg pls
*evil microbe laugh*
Damn Canadians...
Well, I suppose if the Bubonic Plague bacteria had just wiped out Europe like it was supposed too, then there would be no WWI
But without the Black Death, Mongols would have probably retained control of Russia, thus possibly no WWI.
WW1 STARTS:
SWEDEN: AIGHT IM OUT
They heard Russia was involved. They got their fill of Russia in the Great Northern War
I really love the way that Crash Course teaches history. It is as impartial as possible, it always has some revelation about humanity, and it is always very well argued. I learnt so much from here!
WAIT... DID THIS PERSON WRITE THE FAULT IN OUR STARTS.?!?!?
5:50 aged a little bit too well
Having studied subject this in depth, I can tell you that all parties bear culpability for the war: Serbia, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Germany, France and Great Britain.
Each country believed that it would be to their advantage to go to war:
Austria-Hungary felt it was necessary to punish Servia. ( Back then Serbia was called Servia in English-language.)
Russia had to save face in the Balkans as protector of Slavs everywhere, as mentioned by John Green.
Germany believed that they had to eventually go to war with Russia or face annihilation of the Teutonic people by the Slavs. And rather sooner than later when Russia would be stronger.
France wanted back Alsace Lorraine territory that they lost in the Franco-Prussian War.
Great Britain wanted to knock down Germany, which was becoming the big industrial power of Europe. Germany industry was out producing everyone. (like today)
In each country, during July 1914, perhaps a dozen or so politicians, diplomats and generals debated whether to go to war. There was usually one or two who were big proponents of war, and in the end they manage to convince most of the others that going to war would benefit the country.
Have you read Lord Milners Second War by John P Cafferky? I think you'll find it illuminating if you've not yet read it
Germany also wanted colonies. Germany at that time was economically and militarily the strongest nation of Europe, however, it was France and the UK who owned the world.
Two big problems I have with this video concern Russia;
First of all it's stated as unreasonable for Russia to have mobilised in response to Austria-Hungary's moves against Serbia.. this kind of ignores the whole concept of the Panslavic movement wherein the Russians viewed themselves as natural protectors of the Slavic peoples in Europe. Austria would have destroyed Serbia's independence, so Russia viewed itself as obliged to protect her. Not only that but Russia had also been humiliated in 1905 and therefore needed to respond militarily to this lest she be viewed as totally inept and no longer worthy of great power status.
In addition, John bashes Russia for mobilising before Serbia responded to Austria's ultimatum; an ultimatum that was so harsh it was *designed* to be rejected; I doubt that any sane man honestly expected Serbia to acquiesce.
+Bumbling Brit I think these are very good points
+Bumbling Brit Great point.
I am speaking now like a Serb, and yes, we have strong connection with Russia, and Russia need to protect Slavic people in Europe, bcs she is the main orthodox country. Big sister, and I agree with you about power status.
The same situation is happening now in Ukraine and soon is gonna be the same thing in Serbia for Kosovo and Metohija.
One more thing, I am glad that you see ultimatum, and that see your opinion, only fool could agree with that.
All the best
You've also left out the fact that Russia had to mobilise earlier than any other nation because it would take them so long to do so. If all powers had mobilised at the same time then Russia would have been at a major disadvantage because German would have been ready for war 2 weeks (I can't remember the exact length of time) before Russia
The correct answer is Obama started WW1.
Thanks Obama!
Have you heard of The Standard Oil Company? Pretty sure the US was partly to blame for WWI, and pretty sure Russia had valid reasons for preparing for war, but other than that it's GREAT to hear a moderate rational discussion of WWI that doesn't just place blame on Germany. Beyond that though the Treaty of Versailles guaranteed WWII.
Damm early humans moving out of africa and starting world war 1 >.>
Honestly, I myself look at the assassin of the austro-hungarian prince and the politics in the region he died in if I'm asked who I blame for the war.
It was that god damn cataclysmic event that killed the dinosaurs! Dinosaurs are known for their obstinate isolationism. A Europe run by dinosaurs never would have had that tangled a web of alliances!
Damn those pieces of rock for coming together to form the Earth and starting WW1! It never would've happened if they would have just left each other alone.
***** damn those early microbes, if only they hadn't learned to detect light levels, discerning night from day, then none of this would have happened!
dam that bang that created all of this, nobody would have to die if that dam bang didnt happen!
Mark Zunnberg It's the multiverse's fault really. If there weren't an infinite amount of possible universes odds are ww1 never would have happened.
Unless...you're the Swiss. That part made me laugh :D
start the Swiss reel!
seriously, they should that more often, its awesome =]
Haha I liked that too...mostly because I'm Swiss, probably :))
I'm going to post something rather controversial. I'm going to say that since I'm only 25 years old, I'm totally blameless in causing World War I.
Until 10 years from now when you send a Terminator back to kill John Connor
A counterpoint, you may be a promoter of the same patterns that caused that conflict, and if you were part of a repeat situation, that's still sub-optimal. That was said without detailed knowledge of WW1 or you, but it doesn't help to distance yourself and say you don't matter, because you do matter, and what you do large or small will always be a part of history, so make it a good one and rock on, sir!
greg miller
Such has been the lot of the poor since civilization began.
Kaiser Wilhelm II basically acted like a twit because he felt that German was being surrounded by enemies that didn't want Germany to have a slice of the colonial pie.
But I think Germany gets the main blame mostly because they were the last man standing among the original instigators on the "losing" side.
Because really it was a escalated spiraling problem from Austria-Hungary/ Serbia/ and Tsarist Russia's Pan Slavic policy. Two of those powers wouldn't exist by the time the war ended.
Who does that leave for reparations & blame on the losing side? Oh hi there Germany.
The Kaiser was totally an idiot. In my AP Euro class, we read one of his responses and he basically said Britain only attacked Germany because people ganged up in Germany for no good reason when, in reality, Germany invaded and destroyed Belgium, who was trying to be neutral. He also talked about war constantly and was super full of himself, increasing German nationalism and militarism to the point that it was a huge disadvantage for Germany to be full of itself. He thought he was unstoppable. So stupid.
I wish I could write conclusions for my essays that are as satisfying as how John Green summarizes his videos.
what about the assassination of ferdinand
Watch The Great War channel they do a better job explaining World War I.
putin
Kevin Aluka previous upload
+Ghost how do you mean?
Kevin Aluka someone hasn't watched the first part.
I hate the "holier than thou" attitude Green has
hate or envy? =P
Yeah I sometimes get that vibe too - I don't think he means to do it, he's just one of those people with that tone of voice, etc.
This "holier than thou" attitude, is actually sheepish contempt for his oft jingoistic and pompous nationality. He's apologizing for the history of American foreign policy with every hedge. You don't recognize this because your average American education has failed to teach you high level critical theory. This is also why you're feeling misplaced rage as you read this.
irreverend Well.. That finished that argument. Not complaining, I hate arguments. A Brit
This idea of a "holier than thou" attitude is unfortunate; once you assign someone that attitude, you've kind of created a vicious circle, in that any form of humbleness or break with previous behaviour can automatically also be assigned as "holier than thou" attitude. For example, you could evaluate this comment, although I strongly recommend that you don't, because it is quickly turning into a vicious circle on very many levels.
The Ottaman empire, Germany and Austra Hungary where the central powers
And Bulgaria
*The Ottopeople Empire. Gosh, it's 2019!
"(USA) spends more on defense" when we have troops in 180+ countries, that's not defense, that's offense.
Lmbo i love all the not so subtle reframes to american militarism and russian antagonism 🤓
At 6:56 hes making the joke on Putin because he had 2 large military "exercises" near the Ukraine border and is adding more troops on the Crimea boarder with Ukraine now. The more you know
Really? I guess you mean 5:51?
Well and I though he was referring to him because he complained about the West sending their troops to the Russian border and doing military exercises XD
The more you know, right? ;)
Jürgen Lehmann that joke would have been more easily understood than the one about Putin
Pro-EU rebels launched a coup-detat against the democratically elected government (not a great gov't but hey that's democracy for ya), America and Europeans station troop divisions in Ukraine, NATO sends aid to the Ukrainian military which has a large contingent of Neo-Nazis like Svoboda, and recently Ukraine allowed foreign politicians to be able to legislate in Ukrainian gov't. But ya know, Russia's invading.
You missed the opportunity for a "It's almost harvesting season" reference
a shame
Hey, a polandball fan ! :)
War = business. Follow the money and you'll know who started.
Rothschild family and other powerful people such as the Rockefellers
Ahh this was just around the time that the military industrial complex was just becoming solidified as a concept
+Quoc Bao I KNOW RIGHT! I'm so glad there are other people, like you, out there who look for truth and don't just take the same old propaganda. Cheers to peace, justice and sanity!
Here's a link to some top class scholarship on the subject for those who are interested: www.amazon.co.uk/Hidden-History-Secret-Origins-First/dp/1780576307
+Jacob Kuba Out of interest, do you remember where you first learnt about the Rothschild family?
Isis Barrett-Lally from my father back in Africa
hold up, hold up....rusia went to war in defense of serbia...you obviously didnt get it...its not like rusia was not atacked, its because serbia was atacked/declared war upon..... -.-
Kinda... but not really. Russia mobilized BEFORE Serbia rejected Austria's ultimatum, before the war had started. They also were attacked, by Germany, after Serbia rejected the ultimatum.
Petar Stamenkovic Well here's the issue. Amassing soldiers on your own borders would be fine if your borders weren't touching a country supporting a country you're trying to help repel. Also considering that Russia has a huge army size, it's a big fucking deal. Imagine if your neighbor who has to be your enemy by alliance just started moving all of his guns right on your fence. You're going to feel a bit worried.
Petar Stamenkovic Well here's the issue. Amassing soldiers on your own borders would be fine if your borders weren't touching a country supporting a country you're trying to help repel. Also considering that Russia has a huge army size, it's a big fucking deal. Imagine if your neighbor who has to be your enemy by alliance just started moving all of his guns right on your fence. You're going to feel a bit worried.
What the people of Serbia don't understand is the fact that Russia didn't give a damn about Serbia and was just defending it's own interests in the Balkans. I've realised that when I was learning about it in history a year ago and I try to be objective as I can about it. I'm neither pro-Russian nor anti-Russian. I just don't think that there is any "brotherly love" in politics and I think that the people of Serbia don't understand it.
Maybe a small part but Russia wouldn't go to war just because of kinship. I probably used strong words like "didn't give a damn" to make a point.
Bosnia= the country that WWI started in and yet nobody knows where it is :/
Shame on you world!
Ugh..well i learned it started in bosnia, i know it was yougoslavia back then but...ye u know
Don't worry, Bosnia. We still love you.
Mahir Sadad Actually, it was in Bosnia. Bosnia=/= Serbia or province of Serbia. Get your facts straight. Didn't you also hear when John Green said: "Austria annexed Bosnia". Idiot. He didn't say Austria annexed Serbia or part of Serbia.
emirhasa Mahir Sadad wow i didnt even notice u said that XD i think id know where the city i was born in is (bosnia)
Mahir Sadad maybe i dont know a lot :/ idk....and ik ^-^ thx uve been there before or u just know?
The only person to blame for WW1 is Gavrillo Princip who shot the archduke of Austro-Hungary. Cause of the assassination Austria declared war on Serbia.Russia helped Serbia.Germany helped Austria.France helped Russia.And then Germany invaded Belgium that got UK into the war.When the UK joined the war half of the world did so the fault is of Gavrillo Princip,Germany and of course Serbian Nationalists.
actually the black hand organization are to blame
R3D1 really, when Serbs i bosnia defend their rights they are murderers. Gavrilo Princip was member of organisation Bosnian youth, and they were against annexations of Bosnia from Austro-hungarian empire. Germany and Austria were planing war and this assassination came as perfect excuse to start war. Only problem it was to early, they were not ready. Russia as Serbian and Montenegro allied had obligation to protect them in case of any foreign attack. So when Austria attack Serbia Russia declared war.
you are so stupid. Do you realy think that one event was the cause of ww1?? hahaha idiot .... Serbia has never attacked some other nation. Serbia was alsways just deffending from invasion. WW1, WW2, Balkans Was in 90s, 99 Nato bombing...will be continued..
BobTheBob They were more like patriots dude, what he thought he was doing was killing a tyrant, the goal was to start a revolutionary war to liberate an opressed people from an imperialistic realm. Say whatever you want but, to this day, Gavrilo Printzip is a national hero.
Mr. Green you can't just defame the Balkan's historical figures like Gavrilo Princip then metaphorically cover your ears and make noise when people try explain to you the history behind why he did what he did and why it is in fact Austro-hungry's fault. You're being immature and ignorant with your sarcasm and obvious bias in this video.
Bosnia was supposed to be given to Serbia at the end of the last balkan war as agreed upon by every european nation (except bulgaria) in the berlin conference but Austria went against their promise and annexed Bosnia with a bloody iron fist. And lets not even start about the genocide and constant oppression against Croatians by the Austrians.
EDIT: I feel i need to add this for clarification.
The Young-Bosnia movement was a direct result for the Austro-Hungarian OCCUPATION of Bosnia at the end of the last Balkan war. Austro-Hungry promised in Berlin during a meeting that of all european nations attended (except bulgaria) that bosnia would go to Serbia when the ottomans are driven out. This was known as the berlin conference. They lied and occupied it with a bloody iron fist. Actions like the ones taken by the assassins were a matter of time. People jump to conclusions too quickly and don't ask question as to why the archduke was in Bosnia first of all and why on that specific date and what the assassins motives were. The archduke was solidifying his brutal rule over the Balkan people and tried to make a daring political stunt on the Serbs most important holiday at the time emotions flaring. The archduke bit off more than he could chew.
RacerterODST Not sure if you're a troll or a fucking idiot but are you aware of why half of bosnia's population is muslim? Do you know anything about balkan history outside of this video and what you watch on CNN? Have you ever heard of the blood tax?
Besides religion is a pretty weak reason. By that mentality most of europe should just be papal states because they're catholic. You can't mix two cultures as different as oil and water just because they're the same religion.
Edit: Btw there were multiple uprising against the ottomans by the Bosnians, they were all just crushed. They did not 'integrate' well at all.
RacerterODST
While there probably were some people that converted to islam because they believed in it, however MOST people in Bosnia done it to escape the jizya (a tax levied on non-muslim subjects), to escape persecutions (such as the blood tax and enslaving), and in some cases to gain positions in the occupied government.
I think its more than a coincidence that most muslims in Bosnia are descendants of poor landless peasants. They couldn't pay the tax so it was either rape and slavery or convert.
Various types of official pro-islamic laws existed in the Ottoman empire all the way to the 18th century. After that though you can be ensured there would have been a level of cronyism present in remaining muslim ruling class.
To say otherwise is just ignorant and leads me to believe that you have a pro-radical-islamic bias. Are you muslim? Are you a Bosnian or a Turk?
"bosnai should have actually been independant and not part a bloodfirsthy and badly run nation"
Wow, your racism is showing.
The people were clearly forced into the faith and the repeated uprisings and rapid de-islamisation after the last balkan war would indicate so. It has nothing to do with me supposedly being nationalist about a country i've never even visited. Thats just what happened.
When the turks were forced out something like 19/20 mosques became abandoned/re-utilised/destroyed. In Belgrade there use to be dozens of cathedral sized mosques, now there is only one major one.
Also even though roughly half of Bosnia's population is muslim they hated the Ottomans and wanted to join the Serbs even though they're christian. The Serbs and Bosnians had a cultural and genetic similarity.
Almost everyone in the balkans aside from a minority hate the Turks.
Muhamed Mehmedbašić (i bet you can guess what he is) wanted Bosnia to join Serbia too. He was a big part of the Young-Bosnia movement and was meant to be the original one to kill Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria.
I'm not a Serb nationalist i'm just stating the facts and putting those Austrians and Germans in their place. They were a villainous nation during the 20th century and people need to stop trying to make look like a scapegoat, they're not, they were in the wrong.
The Serbs drove the Turks out of Bosnia, it makes sense that an ethnically similar country that they liberated should go to them and not their beefed up neighbour Austria who bullied them out of it and just forcibly occupied a post-war nation.
TL;DR You're wrong. Ti si kriv. Siz Hatalısınız. كنت على خطأ .
RacerterODST First of all while modern Bosnia has every right to be independent and i support it at the time though most Bosnians wanted to join up with Serbia, Christian or not as part of pan-slavism. Lets not compare the 90s to the early 1900s, its apples and oranges.
Now while most nations did kill anyone different from themselves there were many nations, such as medieval Croatia, who were very religiously tolerant. Croatia had Jewish and Orthodox nobility and had nearly half a dozen ethnicities running the country. Croatia functioned and did not charge any levies.
The Ottoman's tax was not humane, it was very cruel. Entire populations were decimated by their policies and rule. Their policies persecuted the poor. They were tyrants. They use to regularly impale prisoners, torture them and even cut there balls off for resisting their rule in any sort of way. Trying to prevent a Ottoman governor from raping your daughter would get you balls cut off, this is true. You were expected to walk around your house 1000 times while he rapes your family. There are Serbian nobilities who wrote journals on their experiences under Ottoman rule. The Ottomans were tyrants and radical islamists, even for their time. They were a caliphate.
"Now we can't hate on Germany and Austria, they were an empire and they're supposed to conquer and do what it takes to make the system work".
Hitler and the third reich were a German empire. Are the Nazi's actions justified because that was what it took to revive Germany as a world power?
Why can't you accept that Serbia was in the right in WW1? Why can't you accept that people want independence and actions like this are the only way to achieve it? Why would a small nation want to start a war within their neighbour that has 10x the population?
Why is Bosnia's resistance against Serbia in the 90s justified but Serb's resistance against the Austrian's and German's rule wrong?
There are too many hypocrites in this comment section. Too many fascists. Too many radicals.
daman1209 1 thing; Serbia was absolutely wrong, and saying bosnia wanted serbians to take over is simply ignorant. Besides Serbians were rampaging the eastern and southern balkans with mass murders all over the place. Serbians as a nationstate have a disgusting history. I don't blame you for trying to twist history into something that makes you able to live in peace with your history and therefore part of your identity, but dont get angry if people tell you (validly) that you are wrong.
Do you not understand that Franz Ferdinand was the biggest supporter of Serbia in the entire country? Killing him only made it worse for Serbia.
Battlefield 1 brought me here
Hisham Abdalla me too
same
Hisham Abdalla hi
A history of starting war defines all nations, not just "western europe" China for example, has been at war for almost all of its history.
Not to talk about America not even like 10 years without conflict, and theyre big because of conflict
China wasn't known for conquering other nations though, and for that isn't as documented and known to the outside world. The wars were many fought inside the borders as a civil war to over throw the Dynasty. Which started from shortages of food, leading to famine. It was mainly to China's high population and infertile land.
Can you blame Russia for preparing beforehand? Every time the rest of Europe has a hissyfit they get pulled in one way or another... Seven Years War and Napoleon being the two recent cases at that point. I would have prepared too. Plus, Europe had been asking Russia to keep the peace and balance of power in Europe (like America today) ever since the Teaty of Vienna in 1815.
...and I think we can all agree that Austria's actions constituted a breach of the peace _and_ balance of power. Oh, and Austria was ironically the force behind making Russia the peacekeepers - oopsie.
Joshua Blachier Additionally, it must be noted that the sheer scale russian army and the russian landmass means that russia will take longer than germany and the other european nations to mobilise. It is not an army that can be mobilised in a day. It would have been straight out stupid for russia to wait for the last moment to mobilise their army.
Not to mention that threats of mobilisation and said mobilisation had sometimes been effective tools of war preventation in the past - who knew this time it wouldnt work?
Germany had a huge dilemma. Almost all conflict scenarios lead sooner or later to a two front war. France being allied to Russia and the triple entente basically check mated Germany's security interests and not only shifted but destroyed the balance of power in Europe again. When Bismarck said "Whatever you do, stay friends with Russia." he basically forecasted all the future conflicts Germany would have in the next decades. Sadly in 1914 there was no statesman in Germany who could even close match the capacity of Bismarck. Germany had only Wilhelm II who was a moron.
God damn, history is such a clusterfuck
It's kinda like this:
Austria-Hungary Ferdinand visits Serbia to make peace, but extremists of the Black Hand assassinate him. Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia.
Serbia, being smaller than Austria-Hungary, asks Russia to help. Russia agrees to help.
Austria-Hungary sees it as 2 vs. 1, and ask Germany, who offers, to help. Germany Fights Russia.
Seeing how Russia and France were allies, Germany counter attacks France before France could even assist the Russians. Germany was at war with France and Russia, while Austria-Hungary and Serbia were still fighting 1 vs. 1.
Germany enters Belgium, where UK fights back and now it's Germany against 3 countries.
Germany occupies waters around the UK and thinks a cruise ships is a war ship and sinks it. UK and US citizens are killed, making US get involved. Germany now against 4 countries.
Ottoman Empire assists Germany against British forces occupying in the middle east.
Austria-Hungary and Serbia are eventually forgotten due to the fact that Germany was against more than one country.
Crazy how this all happens because citizens of one country DID NOT want peace with another one and extremists step it to take unnecessary action. Sad world we live in.
He didn't visit Serbia, he visited Sarajevo, a city in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was part of Austria-Hungary because of Berlin Congress. Also, Ferdinand didn't come to Sarajevo to ask for peace. If he wanted peace with Serbs and other minorities, he would give them some kind of autonomy.
5:53 aged spectacularly.
you guys should sell figurines inspired by Crash Course Thought Bubble because i really want that Imperial Russian Warbot
4:57 Putin!
Adidas are German NOT SWISS
nevermind I paused they were K-Swiss
Shelley Sandman Oof
Way to focus on the important stuff...
Video title: What started WW1
first 4 minutes: It wasn't Germany
Serbia started it.
I agree.Serbia refused to start an investigation that Austria-Hungary requested.That was the last straw.Serbia knew what was going to happen and they still let it happen.Serbia was chasing its dream of creating The Great Serbia and they thought that they were going to achieve it by starting a war.If Serbia hadn't organized the assassination then maybe this would have played out like the Cold war.
Luka Ravlić Well the "they knew what was going to happen" argument hardly seems fair. If someone tries to rob you at gunpoint and you refuse, is it really your 'fault' that you end up dead? Did you 'start' it?
Jackson Paul The Serbian's were issued an ultimatum by Austria-Hungary, an ultimatum in which had VERY harsh demands that were unacceptable to the Serbians. So, in that case, the Austrians started it. Or did they start a regional conflict that had played out 3 other times in a period of 6 years? In fact, Germany started it by declaring war on Russia. But wait, didn't Russia have the pre-preparatory phase? Isn't that pretty much mobilization? So the Russians started it? But wait a minute, Austria-Hungary and Serbia were already at war before Germany and Russia were. To place the blame on one nation is impossible and ignorant. (not trying to be rude)
Colton M True... I never thought of it like that before...(Being sincere)
Jackson Paul i am from Serbia and no we didnt start the war Austria-Hungary started the war they had some parade on our important day.So we killed their leader.
Thanks for doing a video on this complicated subject! I've just got a few comments below:
German -- more precisely Prussian -- militarism, while it might not have been the cause of WWI, was definitely "a thing." It affected German development tremendously that Germany was unified through war under the ultra-militaristic and autocratic Prussian state rather than via peaceful means (say, via the 1848 Frankfurt Assembly).
It's also terribly important to remember how our hindsight affects our view of history. To understand the choices of 1914, we need to understand them as those who made them understood them at the time -- this means understanding their choices without the knowledge of what happened afterwards. Those who made decisions to go to war didn't know they were starting the event that we know as the first world war. They didn't know they were signing up for four years of grueling trench warfare, etc. They knew they were starting a war, but they probably viewed that as something far less terrible than what actually happened.
It's likely Germany decided to take advantage of the Balkan circumstances of 1914 to go to war with Russia because they were afraid that Russia would eventually complete an extensive military modernization programme. This included a lot of railway construction which they thought would render Germany helpless in the event of a two-front war with Russia and France. See the 1912 conference where this was discussed:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Imperial_War_Council_of_8_December_1912
One of my professors always said: "wars don't happen by accident. They happened because people want them." I think that's a valid point here. The alliance system didn't automatically lead to war. There were plenty of Balkan crises before this one, and they didn't cause world war. What we know as WWI probably happened because Germany gambled on war in 1914. However, it is worth noting that the war Germany wanted to fight in 1914 was one in which Britain stayed out, Germany won a quick victory over France, and then turned around and beat Russia. It bears remembering that had Britain stayed out, or had Germany defeated France in the summer of 1914 (both of which could easily have happened), the horrifying trench war we know as "World War One" would never have occurred. We mock the generals of 1914 for thinking war could be over in a few months, but we have to realize that, actually, a short war in 1914 was very possible. If that had occurred, history would have given another name to this 1914 war.
You mention the importance of the diplomats, which is a valid point. However, it's also important to realize that after mobilization began, they lost control of events to their military leaders. In both Germany and Russia, the military kept a lot of information from the politicians, and it's clear that many politicians didn't understand that once mobilization began, there was really no going back (one Russian general told his aide to "smash my telephone" after the mobilization order came, in order to prevent the waffling Czar from calling him to cancel mobilization). In Germany, Bethmann and the Kaiser wanted to back away from war once they realized Britain would be in for sure, but the military (Moltke) told them that this was impossible, because mobilization had begun.
One conclusion that we can perhaps safely make is that the autocracies are to blame for the war. Perhaps this lends some credence to the "democratic peace" theory. Austria, Russia, and Germany all had the opportunity to make decisions that could have prevented general war, but chose not to. On the other hand, the democratic regimes of France, Italy, and Britain had no role in starting the war. Indeed, Italy reneged on it's treaty obligations to stay out of the war (at least initially). The case of Italy is instructive against the notion that the Alliance system led inevitably to the war. Many leaders had more choices in 1914 than we give them credit for. The most succinct summary of the cause of the war I can think of runs something as follows:
"German political leaders decided to seize the opportunity to fight a preventive war agains Russia in 1914 by making Russia's reaction to the Balkan crisis of that year a casus belli. The aim of the war against Russia (and by extension, France) was to defeat Russia before she could complete a military modernization programme that the Germans thought would doom them to defeat in any future conflict. However, once German political leaders realized that there was no chance of Britain staying out of the developing war, they attempted to back down from it, but at this point German military leaders intervened and explained that to stop mobilization would be either impossible or suicidal. The German political leaders thereafter resigned themselves to the war they had started.
Except the Swiss? John... need I remind you?
Battle of Morgarten (1315), Battle of Sempach (1386), Old Zurich War (1440-1446), Burgundian Wars (1474-1477), Swabian War (1511-1516), the Hundred Days (1815), Sonderbund War (1847)... all of these included the Swiss as aggressors...
Did they start those wars?
Morgatern, Sempach, Old Zurich, the Burgundian Wars, and Swabian War, yes, they *started* them with very little doubt.
Hundred Days and Sonderbund Wars... sort of... they were part of an alliance that started those wars, so whether they *specifically* started them is (as usual with history) a complicated question.
there are also europian countries who have literally never started wars because they are very new like baltic countries
linda a
They were part of the USSR.
catalinaga well yes, but they didn't start anything. techinically it was USSR
speaking of starting wars.... I would love to see john green play civilization 6 and argue with the AIs. :D
Serbia started WWI. If they had given Austria the terrorists who killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
Well, Russia joined in and germany said that if join, we'll join. Russia said no. I think we owe Germany an apology.
Nope, Austria would have attacked no matter what. The Ultimatum was made to be unacceptable for a reason.
viesic007 still, we owe Germany an apology and we owe austria AND hungary a big bill
Well, the Black Hand acted largely separate from Serbia.
Yo fuk u all, Brazil(no offens) started the war xD
And the weird thing about Germans is that up to now, there are quite a few who think Jews are to be blamed for losing both wars. Like seriously leave the poor guys alone.
in fact, many of the best pilots that fought for the Germans in WW1 were actually Jewish...Oh treaty of Versailles how I hate you so much.
anti-semitic conspiracy theories have existed for as long as the jews have been minorities in Europe, and they have never been even remotely true
Mr Green, I'll bet Putin loves your laptop. XD
Why would he love a laptop that says that it will kill him?!
so what i got from this is that if japan hadn't beaten russia wwi wouldn;t have started. and if matthew perry hadn't forced japan into the world stage by opening the country to international trade, japan would never have fought russia for land. so it IS america's fault
I find this quite odd and enlightening. Whenever WW1 came up in my own history classes in the UK the blame was mostly assigned to ourselves and Germany have a military and political rivalry, a arms race if you will and the spark that set off the war was the aforementioned assassination. Russia, the Ottomans and others were hardly mentioned.
Makes the education system feel a bit inadequate when a ten minuet video can give you a wider view of a topic then a handful of hour long classes.
The crisis in july 1914 was maybe the most complex in all of human history, so i wouldn't blame your school for not mentioning everything (in germany, we also don't really analyse the russian incentives to mobilise or the british diplomacy under Grey, it is just too complicated and takes to much time)
Even at GCSE, there is no real point going in to full detail about who started the war, it only serves to confuse you. Germany can be blamed entirely, however, for British involvement, by invading Belgium, so that could be why it was never mentioned. Also don't treat Green as an authority, knowledgable though he is, I would still trust most professors of history over him.
Alex Zarandi
I certainly don't make a point of using these videos as more then a general guide line and food for thought, but it still is a little disconcerting when such can give a vastly wider perspective then official lessons. It was some time ago but I certainly don't remember them warning me that there was a lot more going on then they could cover, which I think is at least reasonable to ask for.
Of course, but they are still just teachers, not professional historians. Don't expect too much from history class in school, it is just supposed to give you a quick summary of what happened.
Alex Zarandi no. they put out british discussion of entering the war, and belgium seemed more like an excuse than a reason for entering the war.
"Its hard to play the blameless victim when you're moving all your troops to the border.... Oh hey why are you here again Putin?" Hahahaha that one got me.
John: America blameless
.
.
.
.
America 2020: killed Iran's top general
Serbia actually accepted everything except 1 thing on the ultimatum and Germany said that Austria-Hungary should except the response and have no war. So The German Empire isn’t entirely to blame for the start. They may have escalated it but had Austria-Hungary accepted it it would have been averted and maybe these empires could have stuck around and Germany could have been stronger than it is today.
1:15 Indeed this is a photo of a man called Fritz Fischer, but not the one who postulated the "Fischer Thesis," you are obviously referring to. Therefore it can be kind of deceptive. I did not want to raise an unnecessary complaint, but it was something that attracted my attention.
Wimbledon too, wasn't expecting that
Check out the stand at the home ground Kingsmeadow. He is a fan, and has got them hooked up with many sponsorship deals. He also plays Fifa and posts the videos here giving all the proceeds to the Dons. He is currently working on a movie about them.
Wow! I qualified from St Georges Medical School in 1998. I used to live around the corner from Plough Lane. Which was an overgrown weed patch while I lived nearby. Ironically I now live closest to the unholy MK Dons
*these videos remind me high school, but in the absolute best way possible. I love these videos, they mask the pain of sobbing over late homework, because I genuinely enjoyed watching these before writing my essays* thanks John and Co :)
Germany is not to blame for ww1 it was the Austrians who started the war by declaring war on serbia therefore Germany should have not be blamed for ww1 it was the austria- hungey empire
I'd say that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the spark that lit the fuse
+Roxanna RZ
Very true, but the powder kegs were already in place.
@ 0:26
I love the way John says "and I can't wait for you to defend it" to his younger self. You can feel the spite.
For some reason, he seems to ignore Russian 'interests' in the Balkans and their commitment to protect the Slavic nations - part of the broader European nationalism, imperialism and expanionism which was the real cause of WW1 and many other conflicts.
For some reason, you did not watch the video, because this exact opinion was stated in the quote of the Russian dude.
Indeed WW1 has a broad scope of factors that needs to be taken into account for further deliberation but for the sake of not letting the video drag and concentrate on the gist, he perhaps ommited it.
the slavic nations had a blast in the austrian empire and didn't ask for any protection. why would they want to be protected from food, drink and games?
Who started world war one?
Dice did, so they could make a badass game about it.
Didn't Russia also protect Serbia out of Pan-Slavism? Didn't Russia want to retake Constantinople? Anyone know anything about this?
Russia never had Constantinople/Istambul, but yeah they wanted to kick the Otomans out of Europe, but so did almost every European country in the XIX century
I had read that Russia wanted to have Constantinople because it was important to the Orthodox church.
SinnedNogara Yeah to get it off Muslim hands a bit, but mostly to have control of what gets in or out the Black Sea
SinnedNogara
Well there was, maybe, something called "the Greek project" of Katharine I. which aimed it was to establish a new Greece nation, also following the footsteps of eastern Rome (Russians double eagle comes from the fact that they view them self as "eastern Roman emperors").
I used the word maybe in the first sentence because it is hard to tell, what she was actually planning and how serious she was.
But nerveless, Imperial Russia was always dreaming of conquering Constable and get access to the Mediterranean see.
Si Wi
She was serious enough to call her grandson "Constantine", because she planned for him to be the future Emperor of Constantinople.
The Swiss montage made my day
Caesar should be made to answer for his crimes!
My friend: who's your favorite TH-camr?
Me: Stan From CrashCourse.
In the beginning of the year I wrote an essay for my Year 11 History class about how 'The Alliance System' was to blame for the starting of WWI - my girlfriend wrote about how the Austrians were to blame and my friend wrote how Germany was the main cause.
It's an interesting topic with a lot of points to it! I love that you guys talked about it on Crash Course ;) thankyou
6:40 let's go into how that statement is misleading
A) the Russian army going into a period preparatory to war was necessary for them as it would take them 10 days to 4 weeks to mobilise their southern army districts (the PPW was only a partial mobilisation, not a general one).
B) the Russian steamroller didn't exist, the Germans had more heavy artillery batteries, machine guns and had could mobilise more quickly and way more efficiently.
C) Russian forts were ancient and most of their commanders were just as useless, the good ones were replaced by the tsar
D) Germany declared war on France and Belgium, not Russia. The Russian mobilisation, combined with Austria's invasion of Serbia, made a war between Austria-Hungary and Russia inevitable and a war between Russia and Germany very likely. The Germans however did bring Britain into the war, by invading Belgium, and by invading France.
It's not entirely wrong though to say Russia was feared though. The schlieffen plan placed Russia as the bigger threat, as France was treated like an annoying pest the Germans needed to knock out quickly to focus on the attritional war with Russia. Germany lashed out because they were surrounded by enemies and executed the Schlieffen plan as a preemptive measure. Russia also had a large movement of Panslavists who saw Russia as Serbia's protector as Serbia was made up of fellow Slavs.
The real cause of the war, in my opinion, was the alliance system which destroyed the concert of Europe and the nature of the alliances. Firstly, the fact that the Triple Entente surrounded Germany contributed to German mobilisation and the execution of the Schlieffen plan, as Germany was threatened by a war on two fronts. Secondly, the fact that the Triple Entente included Russia meant that Western European powers could be drawn into a war by Russia, the nation that was most likely to draw them into one admittedly, as Russia had desires on the Ottoman Empire and in the Balkans. Thirdly, the two alliances had competing interests in the Balkans. Russia wanted to encourage the Slavic Balkan nationalism that Austria-Hungary wanted to prevent, alliances like the league of three emperors aligned these interests and would've been better. The alliances would've been better in Europe if it were Italy, France and Britain vs Germany, Austria and Russia or Austria, Britain and Germany vs France, Italy and Russia. But really, it would have been better to have no escalation/setting up of two blocs anyway
"Im more in the bold proclamations business" this describes the internet so well
There is also the fact that France wanted revenge for the Franco-Prussian war in which Alsace-Moselle was stolen, the fact that Germany was building a strong navy to compete with the Royal Navy, the fact that Germany was jealous of the French Colonial Empire and also the assassination of Jean Jaurès, who worked hard to mobilize French and German labourers against the war to come
Peter Frankopan in "The Silk Roads" has some interesting detail on how England were concerned about Russian expansion in Central Asia, and how this threatened English control of India and Persian oil, England feared that they could not win a war in Asia and preferred a conflict in Europe, and so also stoked the conflict. While Germany were eager for war, this was also due to a view that war was inevitable and that the sooner war occurred the better for Germany, as they were best prepared. Thier view was that if war was delayed they would be destroyed by both Russia and France.
From England's part, the plan worked, as Russian expansion was set back dramatically through the communist revolution. Although it worked too well as wealth flowed across the Atlantic from Europe to North America, cementing Europes decline as the dominant power in the world.
Interesting to conclude that all the European powers were expansionist, not just Germany (England had eyes on Mesopotamia, France on Syria, Russia on Central Europe, Balkins and Eastern Europe - if anything Germany was less expansionist), so possibly all were at fault equally. The communists in Russia at the time would argue that rather than countries at fault it was the upper classes that viewed the masses as expendable in such world aims. Perhaps this is a better way of viewing it, rather than countries at fault it was the mindset of the ruling classes at the time that was to blame.
Thanks for another thoughtful explanation of the difficulties surrounding historical analysis guys. I teach History and Historiography to high school students here in Sydney, Australia, and whilst so much of our curriculum is crowded with "what happened", the contestability of history is something finally being brought into almost every topic. Cheers!
"Roll the swiss reel Stan!" *Swiss Reel Plays*
Me: WTF WAS THAT?
“We had a world war, *russia*.” Said with all the energy of a dad scolding a naughty child