There were lots of miscalculations. Germany thought Austrria would defend against the Russians. They were wrong. Military leaders anticipated a short war. A high ranking British office said the war would be very short. Only the British Navy would need to be involved and no British Army forces would be needed. England and France considered Turkey to be weak and "drooled" at the though of seizing Turkish controlled areas in the Middle East. And that is what they did. European nations created the problems we see in the middle east. World War 1 set the stage for WW2.
WW1 set the stage for WW2 because the Entente failed to make a proper peace. Needing the Americans to help set the stage for too many conflicting interests at the neogitiation table.
The plan was to have two Alliance super blocks with ultra massive armies to each act as each other's deterrent. Blackadder's point was the fact that the plan clearly failed. It got to the point where it was simply too much trouble to not have a war.
I like how "Britain is at fault for allying Russia!" but not "France is at fault for allying Russia!" or "Russia is at fault for allying France and Britain!" or "Germany's rise forced their neighbours to ally!" TL;DR: it really was 'web of alliances', not 'this one country is the keystone'
The UK had its eyes on Ireland 1910 to 1914 because the tory party was promoting a civil war there in order to attempt to split the liberal Party on home rule lines and put themselves back in power. That took British eyes off Europe. They therefore did not or could not act fast enough to prevent a war. This would have been in there interest at the time. The pace of events overtook them. Germany kicked the whole thing off by invading Belgium and there was no going back from there. Tory political tactics however contributed greatly to the whole thing.
Appropriating blame for historical events is a waste of time. Nations make decisions that are deemed appropriate at that time. Always have and always will. If we just go back to treating history as something to learn from rather than as a tool to find blame, then our current social and political situations would probably be a lot calmer.
In some cases, such as WW1, I’ll agree it’s mostly just propaganda in order to retroactively make one side appear to be the innocent victim, while the other is this terrible imperialist aggressor. However, in the case of Germany invading the USSR, as well as some of the g3nocides committed by Germany in Africa and Eastern Europe, those really were aggressive acts that need to be condemned.
I really put the ground of blame for the Entente existing on Kaiser Wilhelm, who had abandoned the alliance that they had for a time with Russia and pursuing a rapid growth to Germanys naval force, ticking off Britain.
If you look more closely at the outbreak of WWI, you will see that Russia contributed the same, if not more than Austria-Hungary. They negated any claim that the assassination had something to do with Serbia. They supported Serbia in any move they would make. They mobilized first than any other power, which in this era, mobilizing and the threat of a faster mobilization was seen in the Franco-Prussian war, in which Prussia destroyed France in good part because of its faster mobilization. Even after all that, when Germany tried to talk to Russia, France, and Great Britain that Russia should stop mobilizing, nobody cared enough.
@@engineerenginering8633 In case you believe "poor little Serbia," backing a terrorist organization, to carry out a political assassination as future regime-change operatuin (Franz Ferdinand the liberal-style leader), is entirely blameless...
And the kaiser and the ZAR were good friends so the kaiser manage to convince the zar to stop the mobilization and the zar order so, but the Russian minister of war ignore that order.
They were, and the king of England too, the dam king of England hated the rise of Germany and did pretty much all he could to go to war with it.@@Diedwhilemakingwaffles
Britain can be blamed a bit more. Germany invaded Belgium on August 4th. Until then Britain refused to tell how it would react. Had Britain warned Germany three days before - the Schlieffen Plan was a public secret - the Germans might very well have reconsidered.
@ Engineer: then you no doubt can tell us when exactly, between July 28 and August 2, PM Asquith and/or Foreign Secretary Grey send a memorandum to Berlin (evt. via ambassador Lichnowsy) making a public announcement to that effect. However you failing to do so will be taken as evidence that your assertion is simply wrong.
@@marknieuweboer8099 okay? all i need to say is that britian and germany both sighned the treaty of london in 1839. thats all i need dude. Btw dont go trying to sound fancy with those nothing meaning words like "assertion". like dude, this is youtube comments.
Not sure it this is being taught in UK, but as I recall, "British thinking on how WW1 go started."A bloke named Arch Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry"
"No, there was definitely an ostrich involved." "Well, possibly..." If I'm not mistaken, he had ostrich feathers in his hat that day. So yes, there WAS an ostrich involved!
Personally I believe that when you consider the fact that most European rulers were all grandchildren of Queen Victoria I think it's accurate to call the war the biggest family fight on record. On side note Wilhelm was asked what he believed Victoria's reaction to the war would have been. He stated that if she had been alive then she never would have allowed it.
And if you read the English telegrams between Wilhelm and Nicholas, you get a real sense of tragedy because they came minutes away from potentially averting disaster, but the two empire's respective legislatures couldn't convene quickly enough.
Britain was always taking down the second strongest European power with the aid of allies in order to stay the dominant power since the start of the British Empire in the 1500s.
@@Englishman_and_mountains Britain loves to meddle in European affairs. The most glaring examples are the Napoleonic Wars, the Boer Wars, WW1, and WW2. The recent British propaganda about Russia and Ukraine makes me wonder if these stupid Brits would ever stop sticking their noses in other people's border conflicts. Each time they do, a world conflagration breaks out. This makes the London bankers ultra rich, but everyone else suffers.
I have heard it said that members of the European aristocracy at the time thought that if grandmother (Queen Victoria) had still been alive, she would never have permitted her grandchildren to go to war and would have put a stop to it.
The map of Russia is wrong, its missing Caucasus land like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kars, and its missing Finland, the rest of the video is very good though so I wouldn't care tbh
Britain didn't really go to war over Belgium, any more than Germany went to war over Serbia. Britain went to war because German control of the English Channel with its fancy new navy and unlimited access to the world ocean through captured French ports would have been an existential threat to the British Empire. Belgium gave them a convenient excuse.
@@frank-2martialoffrankoslav151 they did have popular support, though. at least by the urban populations. they took cities like moscow with barely a fight, while siberia took a WHILE. but that's mostly due to transport tbf
russia??? for backing their ally? if they didn't, there would have been a revolution right there in 1914. stability, my friend, is of the essence. and that's what the russians didn't have
the fallout from NOT defending serbia would have been far worse than (at least what was percieved) as a one to two year long war against austria and/or germany
In think in the immortal words of Captain Blackadder 'WW1 happened because it was just too much like hard work not to have a war." I also don't think ppl had realised how bad it was going to be.
Yes, British adhesion to the Franco-Russian bloc was a factor, a reasonable safeguard in 1904 but a dangerously destablising element as Russia recovered from defeat and domestic upheaval. But who had initiated the deadly 1879-1914 alliance system? Why, none other than Germany and Austria-Hungary, the two powers that were resolved on war in the wake of Sarajevo. Britain miscalculated in continuing to reinforce an Entente that should have remained a loose diplomatic grouping, but it wasn't responsible for turning a crisis into a catastrophe.
I actually wrote my Senior Dissertation on the cause of world war 1, (history major), and after looking at everything i came to the conclusion that at its heart, Franz Joseph 1 of Austria essentially created most of the problems that led to the great war. There was a rising movement in Austria-Hungary for constitutional reforms, like what England had already gone through, and he really didnt like the Serbians or even Hungarians very much. He was a brutal leader who isolated Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand, his heir, because Ferdinand was one of the only advocates for human rights and a constitution. Its actually quite ironic that the serbs assassinated him, because he was literally the only on on their side, and if he had simply been able to ascend to the throne, he would have likely gone down as a great leader who reformed Austro-Hungary and led them into the modern day as a world power. There was quite a bit about Franz Joseph, the more i looked into him the more i grew to despise the man, thats why i came to the conclusion that he was essentially to blame for the war, but it was a while ago when I wrote it and I cant really recall details. History is fascinating though.
Everyone wanted that war, that's the problem, if they didn't it would be a new little war in the Balkans, between the old empire and the one that wanted to become one. Serbia wanted to expand to the west. Let's not forget that Serbs were a minority in Bosnia, and other ethnic groups had no problems with the AH occupation. FF wanted to reform the country, and the likely way was to create a South Slavic part equal to Austria and Hungary. That's why the Hungarians didn't like him. It would be a big obstacle for Serbia in its plans to expand to the west. The Slavs in AH were obsessed with pan-Slavism, and Serbia wanted its own empire.
Franz Joesph started a war. The European Powers caused World War 1. France and England getting involved in the scuffle pouring gasoline on a small fire caused the war to fully escalate. If France and Britain remained neutral it wouldn't have been a bloodbath but Russian called on its allies because they knew it was possible they would lose in an open confrontation with Germany which it did indeed lose. Germany would have split up the Balkans with Austria and the balance of power would completely shift. This is why World War 1 happened. It was a concieted effort to keep a balance of power in order to ironically prevent a massive European war.
From the perspective of a Serbian nationalist the Archduke was probably the worst deal. He will throw you a bone so most of the people get pacified, but you still end up being part of a dying empire you wanted to get out of. So if they actually wanted to sustain their nationalist movement the Archduke needed to go away.
Well, as we all are, Franz Josef was a child of his time, born in 1830. His upbringing and education left him widely untouched by the ideas of modernity like republicanism or constitutionalism what makes him pretty reactionary. Being a devout catholic does not help much there. As people get older it becomes subsequently harder to make a change of mind or of heart, so he was pretty sure it was his divine duty to rule all the lands to which he had titles. He also did not give much thought about whether his subjects were Germans or Bohemians, they were his to rule. And he was not lazy, he was a man of discipline. That said, he had no mind for those new ideas his successor came up with, he was that anachronistic.
I blame Austria 90 percent honestly. It all comes down to their demands at the end of the day. People just don’t blame them anymore because they’ve been done in during multiple wars
Ottoman empire was dismembered even worse, with Turkish lands being colonized. They just punched everyone's teeth in for and kept all of Anatolia. Greek, French, Armenian, Italian, etc.
Do you even know what their demands were? Probably not. Serbia agreed to all Austrian demands except for one. That Austrian police is allowed to investigate in Serbia. Serbian refused this point because the entire Serbian political class was in on the assassination.
@@aksmex2576well but most of the ottoman land was their colonies, the arabs revolted with the entent, so the ottomans would always lose a shit tin of land to the new kingdoms and empires created by the opressed servants
More like Serbia 90 percent because of much of their government financially and politically supporting the terrorist group responsible for the assassination. Serbia also refused to hand over the person most closely associated with the three assailants, all of whom were members of that same group. Furthermore, they had been advised to start an investigation and refused prior to the ultimatum. Note - the leader of this group was executed in 1917 by Serbia and admitted involvement, the military attaché of Russia admitted knowing of it, and the Serb Prime Minister admitted to knowing of it (post-war for the latter two). But the winners write history, so despite it being basically accepted fact at this point Serbia is still the poor innocent victim of the big bad Austria-Hungary and (for some reason) the even bigger badder Germany.
As a Serb, Brits are not to be blamed for the great war. Austria had already set its eyes on Serbia, and Bulgaria was in a constant warmongering state, because they always seemed unhappy with the land they received , so much so that they went in a new war against its previous allies just to lose more land, which in return, made them even more land-hungry. Assassination of the Archduke was just the fatal crack in the already old and miss functioning dam... Also, by that time, unrest in their empire met a new level. Nationalism rises, South Slavs want to unite, Ethnic groups want to get to their mother countries or create a new one... even Hungarians didnt like the idea of having a war... And lets not even start about the fact that Austrians couldnt do anything to Serbia without German and Bulgarian help... Austria arguably inherited the nickname of the ottoman empire: "sick man from bosphorus ( in this case Central Europe)". Their pride and greed is what made them collapse.
This video also completely ignores the Austro-Hungarian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina which is what Princip (who was ethnically Serbian citizen of Bosnia) and his accomplices were so angry over. 1914 was not 1815 and the rise of nationalism during the 19th century meant that people in Europe were no longer willing for themselves and their countries to be traded between great powers like cattle. It took a few decades but that's also what finally ended the European colonial empires in Asia and Africa. And Austria-Hungary itself was a relic of bygone days, it was a purely dynastic creation of disparate territories and cultures with no core national ethnic group.
Germany wasn't backing Austria "so strongly" they wrote a note to Austria telling them not to start anything. But Russia and France prematurely ejaculated their mobilization so Germany had to also. Britain did nothing to cuase or provoke this war which was a European war until Germany invaded Belgium. It is more likely than not that Britain would have stayed out of the war regardless whether Germany won or not just as they did in the 1870 Franco-Prussia war because it suited Britain to see a divided Europe. Less hassle that way.
@@Samuil-iq6eb lol, no, this isn't WW2. the leaders and elites of all great powers are at fault. but if you want to blame specific countries, in my opinion it makes more sense to blame austria and britain instead of germany for the WW1
Heavy blame should be assigned to France, whose entire foreign policy was built on revenge against Germany for the 1870 loss in the Franco-Prussian War and regaining Alsace. They were determined to go to war long before Princip assassinated Archduke Ferdinand.
i dont think so. france has not only lost alsace lorraine (an economically important state), and made it easier for germany to invade france in the massive plains and fields of france, addition to the fact a massive iron mine is very very close to the german borders because of the change in borders. but they also made france diplomatically isolated, making it a nightmare to make allies, and risking in the path of making important allies that the germans could invade a fragile france (a fear the military had, even tho that didnt happen, but in retrospect, it was very possible). and lastly, the massive war reparations and occupation made france pissed off soo much, they wished to fight to the very last blood. germany knew with the peace treaty they made for france that they would make a lifetime ennemy, and blamming france for such is also saying that the treaty of versailles was easy for the germans and wasnt the reason why ww2 happened.
@@yesno8371And Prussia punished France so badly because of what Napoleone I did to the HRE and for France trampling on German states each time they had beef with Austria. What goes around, comes around.
@@hammer3721 and france punished prussia heavily after the seven years war. What goes around, comes around. (and yes, france did fight prussia in a land battle just in case)
@@yesno8371 You realise that I can go even further with this, right? Remove your French arrogance for a second and realise both countries had reasons to want to weaken one another, not just poor, innocent France.
@@hammer3721 yet, you completely went around on what i meant in the first place. as my point still stands, france isnt to blame for ww1, even the arguement that "it was because of france that wished for war with germany and heavy blame should go to france" is a bit of stretch to say the least. and not to forget, at the time, france had every justifiable reason to wish for war against germany, given its impact on french society and overall nation, something which is common in pretty much any country that suffered due to a war. not only that, at the time, politics in germany were complex, with many contradictory ideas from others, but in the military for instance, they wished an early war with france and russia to finish them off before they get too powerful, which was also a fear france had. Not only that, the german kaiser wilhelm II personally wished for prosperity amongst german neighbors, even tried to buddy up with russia and france, which shows how complicated ww1 truly is. at the end, no one is to blame for ww1, as the war was inevitable due to one reason : The aftermath of the treaty of vienna. Which in paper, promised no more big wars with heavy involvement on it, as the wars were to be almost like a border clash more than a serious war the past centuries experienced (napoleonic wars, seven years war, 100 years war ect...) however, because there were no such big wars that would define a true winner, it ended up creating a bitterness defeat and wishing for a big war. even if the aftermath of the treaty of vienna did (at some extent) lead for hopes in massive wars, treaty of vienna remains a way better option than anything, as long as humans wanted war, there were going to be wars, no matter the treaty. in conclusion : no country is to blame for ww1, it was due to events, which earlier or later, would lead to a massive war like ww1. ps : french arrogance ?
The common part of all this is that different states are to blame for the contributing factors they played, to further this point even within countries different factions and groups contributed in their own ways; the Tsar was against war with Austria since he had a Austrian wife by the socialist and military factions pressured him to go to war, they then also blamed him for losing it and later for starting it (tough break), the German Socialists Party found themselves silent when the war broke out as a means of maintaining their political power in Germany, Britain as a means to protect itself from any war entrapped herself within a web of allies which the media claimed she had to protect leading to the war that effectively killed her empire.
Russia wanted to dominate eastern Europe. France wanted it's land back and no great power threat. Britain wanted to maintain the balance of power. Germany wanted to seize the time before Russia could modernize. Austria wanted to survive. Bulgaria wanted land. Ottoman Empire wanted to not get partitioned.
@@Terric90 I suppose Serbia wanted to unite the South Slavs, however the true ideals of Gavrilo Princip himself are relatively unknown, at least to someone like me.
"Russia gets it's army ready just in case" at that point the Tsar had committed to war. Russia escalated a regional conflict into a continent wide total war despite no formal agreement. "There would be revolutions, how wrong they were" [revolutions tear apart most of the nations involved] "casts its jealous eye" Jealousy is coveting what you already have. Envy is coveting what others have. "Morocco is being treated to some colonialism" the Barbary pirates inflicted a far more cruel oppression on Europeans before they finally had enough of being kidnapped and enslaved.
Britain is to blame for everything bad in the world donchaknow! The BBC will confirm this! The world would have been a utopia if it weren't for them. We'd all be living in harmony.
@@zkittlezthabanditt604 1. Serbia's border with Austria-Hungary in the north was along the Danube and Sava, no further than that. 2. Bessarabia was controlled by Russia until March 1918. 3. Eupen-Malmedy belonged to Germany until the Treaty of Versailles.
To add onto this, 1)Romania's transylvania border is horribly drawn 2) Northern Schleswig belonged to Germany during ww1, they gave it up at the treaty of versailles
Britain is at fault as much as everyone else is for the war. Being in an alliance is not a crime, nor is upholding your guarantee of independence to Belgium when it is invaded by German troops
Thanks for your comment. I’m not outright saying that having an alliance is the problem more that given that Britain didn’t have anything close to an alliance for the previous century it means they have to be careful when you can shift the balance of power so much. It was absolutely right to uphold the guarantee though
they had all the right in the world to defend belgium, but the brits are to partially to be blamed that it even got that far in the first place. I think that is the point of the video. Britain shuld've mediated and de-escalated the situation when they were asked for help by Germany, but instead they ignored it, probably because they thought they can sit on their arses whilst the continetnal powers fight each other and in the end only Britain would be left.
Germany, as well as the UK, guaranteed Belgian neutrality and independence in the treaty that created Belgium from the Catholic portion of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Railways are to blame. Seriously, all mobilisation plans relied on exactly scheduled railway transportation, meaning they had cutoff points and timetables around mobilizing. Russia needed 30 days in advance, which was the slowest of the major powers, and thus had to get their forces ready first. Now, when Russia mobilised, everyone else followed, and since that train cannot be stopped anymore once it has picked up speed, there was no more stopping the war from happening.
No it is Germany was getting too strong, which scare Britain, therefore Britain got involved where it should not have. Also France was seeking its war of revenge against Germany for 1870-71.
Everyone has some guilt, even france who didnt do anything when russia mobilized its army so early, and when Germany pleaded for France to negotiate with Russia they did nothing
They didn't nothing because they couldn't trust the germans. Mobilisation takes time, if they told the Russians to stop and they did it would have created a big window of opportunity for Germany to attack either.
@@meganoob12 No you have it mixed up Austria-Hungary wanted war with Serbia, they sent Serbia a list of demands over an investigation into the murder of the Arch Duke in their country and Serbia agreed to all the demands except one, and still Austria declared war on them, they wanted war end of story.
so what you are saying, is that austria is to blame for ww1. This video dosent explain how ww1 is britians fault, creating an alliance isnt something to be blamed for.
@@orpheonkatakrosmortarchoft4332 because they were threatned by Russia... Because Russia lied and escalated the entire situation. Germany asked Great Britain for help, but they were ignored
I recall a book(unfortunately can recall name or author) that made a case that everyone wanted war , but nobody wanted the blame for it. And so, the assassination and the substituent events provided the perfect fig leaf.
I thought this was a huge history channel that I’ve just never come across, I would be convinced you’d have around 50k subs if I didn’t look, keep up the good videos!👍
An aspect that's seldom considered on the short war point is that the nitrate for making munitions had long been sourced from the Pacific Coast of S. America. In the British VP their Royal Navy would block German access, and in short order dictate terms. They didn't predict the consequence of tech innovation as the Heber Bosch process allowed nitrates to be sourced directly out of thin air. German munition manufacture became a desperate problem, but the challenge was overcome to the chagrin of all those who bet lives against tech innovation. Japan made a similar miscalculation and that's how they got nuked. If I'm right, then you can heap more blame on the British. As the World Leading Nation, the Foreign Office could have advocated for the status quo... had there been adults in the room, the Serbian incident could easily become an obscure foot note. Strangely, total war was an easy sale to the Age of Innocence. A period of otherwise remarkable peace. Where would the world be today had the Twentyth Century not been squandered on every size of bombs... and all that Megadeath turned to productive ends?🎉
Honestly, every instance of "Britain did it" you pointed to in this video was just Germany behaving aggressively, and then Britain reacting to it. Almost like Kaiser Wilhelm is to blame.
Nope. The Kaiser was trying until the last minute to get the Britain and France to talk sense with the Russians. At the time, mobilization was considered an act of war, and Russia was the first to call a general mobilization. If Germany didn't react, it would've been crushed. The Russian Tsar didn't want war, but he was undermined by members of his cabinet who insisted that Austria should be taught a lesson.
@@maxn.7234 The Kaiser was the initial cause of the War. Read about the "blank cheque" letter sent from the German Government to the Austro-Hungarians.
@@petergaskin1811 I'm aware of the "blank cheque," which has been massively overplayed to push blame on the Kaiser. While the blank cheque was diplomatically inept, it did not cause hostilities to commence. All it did was make the Austrian-Hungarians overconfident in the backing of Germany, which in turn caused them to push hard to punish the Serbs. What precipitated hostilities was the general mobilization of the Russian army. Tsar Nicholas waffled back and forth with Kaiser Willem about rescinding the order to mobilize, but in the end Nicholas was weak and couldn't stand up to his advisors who were itching for a war against Austria-Hungary. The Kaiser was in the center of everything, but he tried to get everyone to calm down, not go to war.
@@petergaskin1811 the "blanque check" was an attempt to localize the conflict thought... The Germans and the Kaiser knew that conlfict was unavoidable after the assassination, but believing that the overwhelming force of the German backing of A-H would quickly end it in a localized war they gave this "blanque check". Russia was a complete wild card who acted against common sense and established diplomatic practices and escalated the situation into a global war. The Russians were the actual agressors.
So Britain encircled Germany so Germany needed to invade France and Russia. Isn't this a bit like the Putin argument? "The Anglo-Saxons have surrounded Russia, so we need to invade Ukraine." I don't think it adds up either way. Instead Primat Der Innenpolitik.
On your map Finland was part of the (then) Tsarist Russian Empire. Also for Britain’s much longer role research Halford Mackinder and how Britain bankrupt needed that costly Second Boer War (underestimate Boer capability) yet desperate for gold mines. Why? We had second Industrial Revolution on Germany (Diesel) and America and rise of Japan and unification of Italy. Britain was spent and it needed some sort of alliance than on paper goes against the trend as Russia always distrusted Britain for over 200 years.
Russia and France were the UK's principal enemies for the 250 years prior to WW1, (France for very much longer), and arguably still are. Only the idiot Liberal party would involve the UK in a land war to defend our principal enemies against a traditional ally, all for the financial benefit of our main economic opposition. Sadly the descendents of these idiots still control the civil service and judiciary of the UK today
Very informative and interesting! The editing is top quality. Just gained another sub. Also could you make a video about the Treaty of Trianon and how it affected/affects Hungary? Much love from The land of Árpád!
Without knowing that they would get the support from UK , Russia and France would have never ever have attacked Germany. And they knew it from 1904 in French case, and from 1907 in the case of Russia. They knew they would have British support in case of war, and they behaved aggressively against Germany.
The ententes definitely indicated they’d get British support if they were attacked by Germany. But the reality is that Russia technically was and France defended Russia, which everyone expected. But Britain didn’t declare war then. It waited got the Belgium incident. But ultimately I can’t see how Britain would have allowed Germany to dominate Europe so much and so it’s possible they would have done something regardless
Actually France was very concerned almost to the last minute that Britain would not support them. There was nothing legal that committed Britain to supporting France. And as Russia was hardly popular in Britain supporting the war for Russia's sake would have probably brought the government down. Britain's real reason for joining in was the realisation that if they did not join in then whoever won would be totally hostile to an isolated Britain.
This is silly. Here are a few scenarios that could have prevented World War I without Britain’s involvement: Austria attacks Serbia immediately: If Austria had launched its attack on Serbia without escalating into a larger conflict, war could have been avoided. Austria accepts Serbian terms: Had Austria chosen to accept the terms proposed by Serbia, a major conflict might have been averted. Germany localizes the war: If Germany had focused on containing the conflict and preventing it from spreading, World War I could have been avoided. France refuses to support Russia: If France had declared that it would not back Russia in its actions against Germany, the war might not have occurred.
Everything except the most important, an independent investigation that would show the organizers of the assassination. Let's not forget that AH military circles felt responsible and wanted revenge (the incompetent General Potjorek). In any case, it would be only a small local conflict, two wars have been fought in the Balkans in the past few years (1. all against the Turks, 2. all against the Bulgarians). Russia and other great powers wanted that war, they are all to blame for the more or less unimportant (for most) local war becoming a general slaughterhouse.
there's a big difference between what *triggered* the war and what *caused* the war. Tensions were building over decades and it was bound to happen sooner or later.
Don't agree with this analysis. The war was about who dominated Eastern and Central Europe. Russia and Germany shared a long border in what is now Poland. Moltke was the head of the German army and he was also running foreign policy because the Kaiser was weak. The Russians had a large army which was rapidly modernising located on Germany's border. Moltke wanted to crush the Russians before this army became too powerful. He didn't care about navies or colonies. He didn't care about the tiny British army, it was irrelevant. Bismarck had said he would send the police to arrest Britain's army if it landed in Europe. France made the mistake of getting drawn into the war by supporting Russia. Britain did not have a treaty with France or Russia. The British Cabinet was split, but it concluded it had a moral duty to protect Belgium, not France or Russia. Britain tried on numerous occasions to organize a peace conference in the months before the war, but the German ambassador in London was ignored by Berlin. Moltke was the war's architect. The best analysis of the causes of the war was done by Margaret Macmillan an Oxford professor. Her grandfather David Lloyd George cast the deciding vote in the British Cabinet in 1914, and he became prime minister in 1916.
The Germans were becoming a threat to British economic dominance. So, the British did what they always did. They manufactured a war to bring down their rival.
@@edlawn5481don't forget what the British did to the Boers. Which, would've been the point when the Germans would've gone to war with Britain if they wanted one.
Moltke's actions seem to have been a large contributing factor to the war. I particularly enjoyed the 3 hr dramatization "37 Days" in which Ian McDiarmid (known to many as Emperor Palpatine) played Sir Edward Grey.
Did anyone notice the quote "Verdun is a Human Slaughterhouse". (1:00) Take it from me, that is true. Because I have a lot of family that live in that region of France and I have seen military graveyards, bones of unidentified solderers at Fort Douaumont at the ossuary. My mum was brought up in a farming village which has a small river flowing past it. Inside that river, we found bullets, shells, cartridges, parts of a rifle, part of a helmet and even an American solder's dog tags. There is one small village which was near Fort Douaumont called Fleury-devant-Douaumont which was completely destroyed during the shelling of Douaumont. In fact the French forgot that the village even existed and then they realised it, when the church bell (which was the only thing that survived the shelling) was discovered in the mid 80s. There is also certain parts of land around Verdun called Zone Rouge which is still contaminated by human and animal remains, you have unexploded bombs and landmines which are still live to this day. part of Zone Rouge are still heavily polluted by the poisonous chemicals that were used during the war.
Title: "Nobody blames the British!" Meanwhile: literally every WW1 video's comments section is full of malding Kaiserboos crying about the British like they're the International Jewish Conspiracy, and getting zero pushback bcs everyone else doesn't care enough to contradict them. Why is it that Kaiserboos pretend they are the underdogs of historical truth when they are in fact the leading form of established pseudohistory among the masses?
Tbh I hate Imperial Germany but there's more truth to idea of the british scheming stuff than there ever was to jews since Britain controlled the world's economy & ruled 1/4 of the planet and very much wanted to keep things that way unlike the jewish people who were only a diaspora hated for being a diaspora that was forced to do finances because they werent allowed to own land at allTbh I hate Imperial Germany but there's more truth to idea of the british scheming stuff than there ever was to jews since Britain controlled the world's economy & ruled 1/4 of the planet and very much wanted to keep things that way unlike the jewish people who were only a diaspora hated for being a diaspora that was forced to do finances because they werent allowed to own land at all The problem with kaiserboos isnt that they rightfully blame Britain for being an asshole every step of the way, it is that Germany was an even bigger asshole and when they lost they blamed the aforementioned jews(and other minorities) for it
Mainly because the fact that they are kind of right. While yes Germany and AH do have a lot of blame, as the reasons stated in the video, Britain does deserve some blame. Its why most historians state that everyone was to blame for WW1, saying it was only Germany and AH is derived from Propaganda by the Entente, and based on your comment and another in this thread, it seems it has worked.
I wouldn't say Britain had much to do with this war's outbreak. Yes it did create the entente but as a reaction to Germany's moves and Austria and Serbia are the real countries responsible for the war
The video does get to this point. Britain didn't want the war and wasn't being completely reckless, but it did create conditions that isolated Germany (even if Germany was being aggressive at times)
Britain would have joined he war later anyway to “support its ally France”, Belgium was just an excuse. The “support its ally France” line is also excuse, Britain just wanted to destroy the German empire or at the very least ruin its economy (that means blockading it and starving millions of Germans during the war). Why you ask? Because Germany just surpassed Britain’s economic dominance a decade or so earlier, mainly through trade which was what the Germans did the naval buildup for, to protect the trade fleet in case of war with Britain, and look how right they were, mainly Admiral Tirpitz who predicted the British naval blockade years earlier.
Self fulfilling prophecy. If Britain saw Germany/Prussia as a threat she had many opportunities since 1871 to cripple her. No land fighting even needed as a blockade and the swift fall of Germanys colonies would be the end of it. Britain as the world’s leading naval power was a status quo at this point and hadn’t been an issue for the last centuries. Additionally Britain was on shaky terms with both France and Russia and saw them less favourable until Germany built its fleet. Germany was never going to win the colonial and navy game it was futile. Also America had a bigger economy but wasn’t necessarily an instant inevitable enemy by any means. Also people are just looking at the economy of the British isles and going “Oh wow Germany and America had bigger economies”. When in reality Britain was a global empire and the combined economy of the empire was still firmly twice as large as any over rivals. With the bonus the Britain controlled/owned most of the USA investment and infrastructure and many other nations had large parts of their economy in Britains investors and bankers pockets. All in all it was a force about as dominant as the USA was in ‘60-90s at the time. Nothing was needed just to sit back and unify with the dominions and from there govern the empire together. Britain was pretty content with its position.
Any Scot who ciritizes the English should stfu and come to the realisation that they are as guilty as their fellow Germanic English (no, Scottish people are primarily not celtic) of crimes that were commited in the empires history. The Irish got a pass though, they realy were shit upon by the Scottish and English.
i seriusly dont get understand how britain is guilty of the great war, based on this, they simply proetected their interests, by war if needed, whats the average thing a country does, and they wouldnt have said "its a war in mainland europe that isnt gonna hurt us", because the napoleonic wars have proven the opposite.
Partly because Britain got uptight about an expanded German navy, but didn't get upset over an expanded US navy and at the time the US saw war against Britain as a possibility and had a plan up to the 1930s. The US also had a huge population of German background.
I agree. The rivalry that Germany felt with Britain always struck me as one-sided, at least to begin with. Great Britain simply reacted to a threat. This video has not convinced to change my mind.
The question is if Britain was by treaty obliged to defend Belgium's neutrality. Article 7 of the Treaty of London that is always invoced only obliged Belgium to remain neutral. And before 1914 the UK did not think it was obliged to defend Belgium(C Clarke, The Sleepwalkers). Certain hawks within the English government just wanted the war. Most English certainly did not want a war. But some key players did ( e g Grey).
WW1 was caused by craziness, pettiness, ambition, alliances and leaders who did not yet fully appreciate how destructive that modern warfare had become. WW2 was basically caused by WW1. WW3 will be caused because of leaders who are crazy and ambitious, and who have forgotten how destructive that WW2 was, and how even more deadly that modern warfare has become since that time.
It’s a great video. But why is the map at 4:47 so strange? Instead of owning Finland they have modern day borders with them . Also Tannu Tuva is Controlled by Russia which at that point it wasn’t. Also in the Caucasus Russia has it modern borders but it should control: Abkhazia, Georgia, South Ossetia, aserbaidjan and Armenia
"Minister Britian has had the same foreign policy for atleast the last 300 years, to keep Europe disunited... Divide and rule, why stop now when it's worked so well." Sir Humphry
This is a really good channel, I hope you continue I could see this channel reaching thousands of subscribers with this amount of quality in the videos
Even your own video highlights that it was a series of German actions, building up its navy and sending ships to Morocco are two examples, that drove Britain into the arms of France. Even with the Triple Entente Britain probably would not have entered the war if Germany had not invaded Belgium. So it seems to me that putting any significant blame on Britain is a huge stretch. It's interesting to contemplate a world where Britain didn't enter WW I. No Britain in the war would have meant no US war loans to the British, and thus probably no US involvement, and no Balfour Declaration the absence of which might have done wonders for peace in the Middle East.
@@drazenbicanic3590 Britain worked to maintain a balance of power on the continent but stayed out of permanent alliances for most of the 19th century. Britain preferred to play the continental powers off of each other while remaining aloof themselves. This policy, called Splendid Isolation, was the main British diplomatic strategy of the 19th century. Britain avoided permanent alliances from around 1815 (some say 1822) to 1902 when they signed an alliance with Japan after failing to come to agreements with Russia or Germany.
@@Valicroix When France was the first continental power, England made alliances against it, when Germany took the primacy..... When Russia became a threat with victories against the Turks, see the Crimean War
@@drazenbicanic3590 The Crimean war was an alliance of convenience in the same way that the US joining WW I was an alliance of convenience. These weren't permanent alliances. Google "Britain Splendid Isolation." Britain stayed out of long term permanent alliances through most of the 19th century.
@@drazenbicanic3590 The alliances against the French were prior to 1815. The Crimean War was an alliance of convenience in much the same way as the US joining WW I was an alliance of convenience. These weren't permanent alliances. Google "Britain Splendid Isolation." Britain stayed out of long term permanent alliances through most of the 19th century in order to give it the flexibility to pursue, as you point out, its main strategy of maintaining a balance of power on the continent. So "Splendid Isolation" was a means to an end rather than an end in itself.
The Franco-Russian alliance was established before the Anglo-Franco entente cordiale which means that this video really doesn't make that much sense. Nevermind that the entente cordiale is not an actual alliance, just a piece of paper that says that the two should act as friends and if they feel like it help them in a defensive war.
Because Austro-Hungary was the lesser power in that alliance. It is not entirely fair, but Germany is blamed for making it a general war rather than a local conflict.
Germany had alliances with Russia before Kaiser Wilhelm messed that up. The Kaiser was also related to the British royal family. He also asked Mexico to go to war with the US which was one of the reasons the US used to enter the war.
Of course. They were also the pinnacle of culture and civilization. The greatest thinkers and inventors were all German. The envy was STRONG. The British people have to be the most cowardly and spiteful people in history... they sit on their island all toasty and secure starting conflicts@@WillGochee
@@WillGochee that is simply wrong, prior to WW1, Britains economy was far far far superior to the germans, it wasnt even close, for example: during the naval arms race while Britain was literally building more than twice than what the germans were building, the german economy essentially collapsed and couldnt build anymore, meanwhile Britains economy didnt even even feel the cost of the arms race, thats how large the economic difference was, the French economy was also superior to the germans pre ww1.
There was a revolution, in Russia. Britain already had its empire and wanted to keep it, Germany had imperial ambitions and needed to contest British sea power to achieve them. The Austro/Hungarian Empire was on its last legs and every power involved wanted to pick up bits of it as it came apart. The real culprit is imperialism itself, the desire to maintain it and the desire to achieve it. Britain can take its share of the blame but others share it as well.
I am slow to blame the UK. It's long standing dogma was to ensure that Belgium safe since takeover would poise Germany to cross the channel and invade. It was made perfectly obvious at the Battle of Waterloo when the UK destroyed Napolean. Let's face it: Russia and Germany were late to the game in grabbing up territories and time was running out to gain new prizes. Bottom line: The UK was reasonable in protecting Belgium and Germany and Russia were going to fight anyone to gain more territory.
Why did it feel the need to protect Belgium? Curiously, at the exact same time Britain was suppressing little old Ireland as an independent state it felt the need to run off to defend little old Belgium? Weird.
Britain was itching to go to war with Germany and was looking for any excuse. Germany was on the rise and started to build up their naval power and GB didn’t like that. Germany on the other hand didn’t expect GB to go to war over Belgium.
They didn't even bother to justify Belgium when their whole beef was artificially inflated against just Serbia Serbia and Russia. It's mind boggling to me how historical revisionism tries to whitewash Germany over a well know fact with excessive amounts of extremely detailed documentation. Belgium was neutral, unrelated, and on the other side of the European continent- yet they ended up being the first ones to receive flak few months before friggn Serbia that should have been done for.
The English speaking world won two world wars, neither of which they wanted or started, (in spite of this shallow documentary}, thousands of British, Commonwealth and US troops died in WW1 and WW2. Lest we forget.
Thank you for the presentation. Thank you for the commentary about the dispute over the causes of The Great War. It is noteworthy that the presentation begins with how an ethnic group needs its own land. Ethnic groups who were assimilated into the Austria-Hungarian Empire needed their own homeland. In-group preference was denied. My generation was instructed that Germany caused WWI. But as a non-traditional student in 2007 I was instructed that Great Britain also was to blame because GB was in competition with Germany. The superpowers needed their colonies in order to be supplied with resources. But no one's gaze seems to linger on that the Slavs supported other Slavs, Poles wanted Poland, and that various ethnic groups wanted to separate.
The Serbs did not want pan-Slavism, but hegemony (as did the Russians) Croats and Muslims were satisfied with the AH occupation of Bosnia (the Austrian administration was an improvement compared to the previous one) F Ferdinand promised the South Slavs (Slovenes, Croats, Bosniaks and even Serbs) the formation of a separate entity in AH, equal to Austria and Hungary (Or they believed it, he was killed, so we don't know what would have happened if it had happened). In any case, this did not suit the Greater Serbs.
Apart from the Serbs in Bosnia, who were only a minority of the population there, most ethnic groups were not looking leave the empire because the Austrian part of the empire was fairly liberal and gave the ethnic groups in their part of the empire a lot of space. The assassination was in part due to this liberal drive in which the dual monarchy was planning to become a triple monarchy with a Slavic monarch which would have been a big threat to Serb nationalism.
That's right. The Russians also wanted to break through to the west and used Serbia to provoke a war. (The big thugs send a little rooster to provoke a conflict). The German emperor wanted to prove that he was better than his father. The French sought revenge for Sedan. The English have always caused discord in the EU in order to preserve world hegemony. Well, all the big players wanted that war.
This is a lot to digest. Unfortunately the narration is so quick that we scarcely have time to think about what we're hearing. Governments may have been distrustful of one another, but the citizens were not necessarily. There was a Christmas truce early in the war; the soldiers did not want to fight one another. What treason!
All of the European powers signed a treaty decades previously, guaranteeing Belgian neutrality. Britain would've stayed out of the war, until Belgium formally requested assistance. At that moment Britain was compelled to fight. The guilt for the war falls entirely on the person of the Kaiser, not Germany.
The blame entirely lies on Serbia for refusing Austria's incredibly generous ultimatum considering the Heir to Empire was killed by a sect of the Serbian military, You're clearly an Anglo considering the irrational hate for the Kaiser you display in other replies.
@@Prinz8IV8You mean the "Incredibly generous ultimatum" that was clearly intended to be rejected? If anyone's to blame, it's Franz Conrad von Hotzendorf.
@@timesnewlogan2032 Yet they accepted every demand but the last, the one that would have allowed Austria to find out Serbia's involvement in the Black Hand
@@Prinz8IV8 And would have turned Serbia into a de facto client state. The one point they refused was meant to be the deal-breaker, a point so overbearing that it would never be accepted.
The intricate web of alliances and rivalries leading to WWI is fascinatingly complex. Your breakdown sheds light on Britain's pivotal role amidst the chaos. It's a reminder that history is rarely black and white. Excellent analysis!
Had the Tsar not been overthrown, Russia would have received Constantinople as a reward and would have united the Slav nations and reconstituted the Byzantine Empire which was the Imperial dream. Russia might have affirmed its control over Syria as it was recognised by the Great Powers as the protector of Christians by the Treaty of Berlin.
Germany and had a Austria-Hungary secret agreement? There was an alliance between them. Italy was a member as well. Although they ended up on the same side as Russia, France and Britain(who had an alliance as well) I do not think it was much of a secret!
This is badly edited and gets if dates all mixed up without correction. The Franco-Prussian was was in 1870 while the Russo-Japanese was was in 1905. The German plan after the 1870 war was to beggar France in perpetuity. The German navel build up worries Britain fora very valid reason, they had a HUGE army while the army in Britain is small. If Germany controlled the seas they could invade as they had proven that was their favorite method of getting their own way. Prior to the naval build up Britain and Germany were close friends as neither could threaten the other. Good fences make for good neighbors The basic FACT is that Germany violated their sworn word and invaded a country they were pledged to protect. That was Always part of their vaunted Schliffen war plan. So is "Honoring your sworn promise is wrong?" According to this, Yes. While there is plenty of blame to share around, the major part must go to Germany for their decades long belligerence and insane methods of 'diplomacy' which revolved around making sure any deals were greatly in their favor, at least 60/40 though 70/30 was preferred. The idea of a fair 50/50 arrangement was anathema to German diplomats
Thanks for your comment A couple of minor things I want to address. The Russo-Japanese war took place over 2 years, starting in 1904 and sure I don’t explicitly mention the Franco-Prussian date. So I’m struggling to see how the dates are all mixed up? Other thing, and I’ll add a pinned comment on this because it wasn’t my intention, I’m not saying that Britain defending Belgium was wrong or it should have done something else at that stage. It was essentially too late to do anything then. My main point is that despite Germany generally being aggressive in Europe, there was room for cooperation in the decades before and arguably Germany would have been easier to work with from a friendlier stance (although this is getting dangerously into counterfactuals, so I’ll stop)
@@unheardhistory Yes, there was scope for co-operation (especially against non-white peoples, as in China in 1900), but Berlin's behaviour made it vastly more difficult. Morocco was small potatoes, a matter of Germany testing Entente resolve rather than seriously threatening to tip Europe into war: the Balkans by then presented the greater source of risk owing to Germany's fatal 1879 alliance with Austria-Hungary.
Russia had more to do with the escalation of the war than any other country. Tsar Nikolas II and his war council started amassing thousands of troops along the German Border, after The Austro-Hingarian Empire sent a list of demands to Serbia to stop the violence, apologize for killing the Duke, and all of the troops to get thee hence. Those Russia troops chomping at the war bit were a clear provocation to fight to Germany and Austria. Russia could have told Serbia to stop all of this nonsense and give in to Austria's demands, and not started sending thousands of troops to the border, but Slavic pride got in the way and Serbia refused, and Russia couldn't be convinced to knock it off. Russia could have not amassed troops the way that they did, and tensions would have likely cooled down, but Russia actually wanted a war with Germany. They just didn't count on the whole world going up in flames when it kicked off. Many theorists believe that Russia simply didn't care that so many would be killed in the resulting war, because Russia had globalist goals, and they didn't care how many peasants it killed. Germany didn't want to fight, but they needed a little insurance policy to make sure that Russia might shoot themselves in the foot if they started getting giggy with it. The only trouble with Russia's plan was that there was this little creep called Lenin that Germany was smuggling into Russia to start trouble there, you know, just in case. If Tsarist Russia had concentrated on stomping out communism rather than trying to be the big dog in world dominance, there would have never been a Soviet Union, and The Great War would have likely only been the Austo-Serbian War instead. So... Russia caused World War One, and Imperial Germany gave birth to the Soviet Union.
There were lots of miscalculations. Germany thought Austrria would defend against the Russians. They were wrong. Military leaders anticipated a short war. A high ranking British office said the war would be very short. Only the British Navy would need to be involved and no British Army forces would be needed. England and France considered Turkey to be weak and "drooled" at the though of seizing Turkish controlled areas in the Middle East. And that is what they did. European nations created the problems we see in the middle east. World War 1 set the stage for WW2.
good points but l’m curious as to how the Central Powers would have treated Britain France and Russia if they were victorious in The Great War 🤔
@@skepticalsmurf Similar to Germany treated France after 1871? Just that UK and Russia lost some power?
WW2 was a huge coincidence, had anyone but the nazis won, there would have been no WW2.
Actually, invading Muslim armies did that by attacking the Byzantine Empire.
WW1 set the stage for WW2 because the Entente failed to make a proper peace. Needing the Americans to help set the stage for too many conflicting interests at the neogitiation table.
Blackadder: There was one tiny flaw in the plan… It was bollocks!
Blackadder really had the best, deepest analysis.
A plan (other than for invasions that all failed) might have been a good place to start.
The plan was to have two Alliance super blocks with ultra massive armies to each act as each other's deterrent.
Blackadder's point was the fact that the plan clearly failed.
It got to the point where it was simply too much trouble to not have a war.
@@NostalgicGamerRickOShay "Let's make ourselves look more of a threat to everyone else - that'll keep us safe!"
@@NostalgicGamerRickOShay
_“So the poor old ostrich died for nothing.”_
I like how "Britain is at fault for allying Russia!" but not "France is at fault for allying Russia!" or "Russia is at fault for allying France and Britain!" or "Germany's rise forced their neighbours to ally!"
TL;DR: it really was 'web of alliances', not 'this one country is the keystone'
fr they go "erm it's their fault!" like it's a school fight and not a fucking war with deaths
@@Averaage_Commenterexactly
Britian didn’t ally with Russia they had a small kind of allaince with France but it wasn’t really really so it was kinda different
@@AdvancedGamer- what?
@@Averaage_Commenter what?
bottom line: they were all at fault in one way or another
The UK had its eyes on Ireland 1910 to 1914 because the tory party was promoting a civil war there in order to attempt to split the liberal Party on home rule lines and put themselves back in power. That took British eyes off Europe. They therefore did not or could not act fast enough to prevent a war. This would have been in there interest at the time. The pace of events overtook them. Germany kicked the whole thing off by invading Belgium and there was no going back from there. Tory political tactics however contributed greatly to the whole thing.
Britain hade the rigt to defend belgum instead of letting the germans just take it germany was the agressor
Except Belgium.
@@gertstraatenvander4684 and britain and maybe franse and serbia
That's a bit of a cop-out. Germany was the main culprit, followed by Austria and to an extent, Russia (tricked into it by Germany).
Appropriating blame for historical events is a waste of time. Nations make decisions that are deemed appropriate at that time. Always have and always will. If we just go back to treating history as something to learn from rather than as a tool to find blame, then our current social and political situations would probably be a lot calmer.
👌
Spot On. The morals today do not reflect the morals through history. You need to be in their shoes to understand their decisions from the past.
Good job my man. I’m not even British but you do have a point. There’s always hindsight
In some cases, such as WW1, I’ll agree it’s mostly just propaganda in order to retroactively make one side appear to be the innocent victim, while the other is this terrible imperialist aggressor. However, in the case of Germany invading the USSR, as well as some of the g3nocides committed by Germany in Africa and Eastern Europe, those really were aggressive acts that need to be condemned.
I really put the ground of blame for the Entente existing on Kaiser Wilhelm, who had abandoned the alliance that they had for a time with Russia and pursuing a rapid growth to Germanys naval force, ticking off Britain.
If you look more closely at the outbreak of WWI, you will see that Russia contributed the same, if not more than Austria-Hungary. They negated any claim that the assassination had something to do with Serbia. They supported Serbia in any move they would make. They mobilized first than any other power, which in this era, mobilizing and the threat of a faster mobilization was seen in the Franco-Prussian war, in which Prussia destroyed France in good part because of its faster mobilization. Even after all that, when Germany tried to talk to Russia, France, and Great Britain that Russia should stop mobilizing, nobody cared enough.
so in other wars, austria is to blame for ww1.
@@engineerenginering8633 In case you believe "poor little Serbia," backing a terrorist organization, to carry out a political assassination as future regime-change operatuin (Franz Ferdinand the liberal-style leader), is entirely blameless...
And the kaiser and the ZAR were good friends so the kaiser manage to convince the zar to stop the mobilization and the zar order so, but the Russian minister of war ignore that order.
@@alvarorubiodomech8327 tsar. And I belive they were cousins.
They were, and the king of England too, the dam king of England hated the rise of Germany and did pretty much all he could to go to war with it.@@Diedwhilemakingwaffles
Britain can be blamed a bit more. Germany invaded Belgium on August 4th. Until then Britain refused to tell how it would react. Had Britain warned Germany three days before - the Schlieffen Plan was a public secret - the Germans might very well have reconsidered.
britian was very vocal that they would join the war.
@ Engineer: then you no doubt can tell us when exactly, between July 28 and August 2, PM Asquith and/or Foreign Secretary Grey send a memorandum to Berlin (evt. via ambassador Lichnowsy) making a public announcement to that effect. However you failing to do so will be taken as evidence that your assertion is simply wrong.
@@marknieuweboer8099 okay? all i need to say is that britian and germany both sighned the treaty of london in 1839. thats all i need dude. Btw dont go trying to sound fancy with those nothing meaning words like "assertion". like dude, this is youtube comments.
Nope. That's not how diplomacy worked in 1914, sillypilly. Thanks for confirming my original comment.
@@marknieuweboer8099that littery how diplomacy worked and still works. thank you for proving yourself wrong. treatis are diplomacy dude.
Not sure it this is being taught in UK, but as I recall, "British thinking on how WW1 go started."A bloke named Arch Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry"
"Aha!" in the voice of Eddie the Ostrich from Family Guy.
Now tell us about the Turkey.
ww1 isnt britians fault, he dosent even say anything that makes the uk to be at fault.
"No, there was definitely an ostrich involved."
"Well, possibly..."
If I'm not mistaken, he had ostrich feathers in his hat that day. So yes, there WAS an ostrich involved!
Archie Duke ‘is name wos.
And the poor old ostrich died for nothing
Personally I believe that when you consider the fact that most European rulers were all grandchildren of Queen Victoria I think it's accurate to call the war the biggest family fight on record.
On side note Wilhelm was asked what he believed Victoria's reaction to the war would have been. He stated that if she had been alive then she never would have allowed it.
And if you read the English telegrams between Wilhelm and Nicholas, you get a real sense of tragedy because they came minutes away from potentially averting disaster, but the two empire's respective legislatures couldn't convene quickly enough.
The sad part is that Wilhelm tried the hardest to stop the war, and gets all of the blame because of propaganda.
@@RambleOn07 You can really hear the worry and desperation in his letters. But the Russians couldn't get their act together in time.
The Habsburgs were not related to Victoria: catholics wouldn't marry protestants back than (while the orthodox Russians didn't bother so much)
@@ekesandras1481if only they did, the members of Habsburg imperial house had by this stage become genetically identical.
Britain was always taking down the second strongest European power with the aid of allies in order to stay the dominant power since the start of the British Empire in the 1500s.
That's pretty much the game they were all playing. You can't just point the finger at the empires who were most successful.
The eternal anglo, perfidious albion, always lying scheming and breaking deals with allies and friends.
@@Englishman_and_mountains Britain loves to meddle in European affairs. The most glaring examples are the Napoleonic Wars, the Boer Wars, WW1, and WW2. The recent British propaganda about Russia and Ukraine makes me wonder if these stupid Brits would ever stop sticking their noses in other people's border conflicts. Each time they do, a world conflagration breaks out. This makes the London bankers ultra rich, but everyone else suffers.
@@Englishman_and_mountains Anglo imperialists try not to justify British empire challenge
@@genuscorvid not our fault we were better at colonising than you.
I have heard it said that members of the European aristocracy at the time thought that if grandmother (Queen Victoria) had still been alive, she would never have permitted her grandchildren to go to war and would have put a stop to it.
That's what Wilhelm the Second said.
Edward VII wouldn't have cared much what mummy wanted, he and Kaiser Bill hated one another.
@@georgeprchal3924Although he'd been dead for over four years when WWI broke out. Faulty Ouija Board perhaps?
@@TheHoveHeretic Queen Victoria died in '01, it wouldn't have mattered because by then George V had maintained his father's attitude towards Germany.
The map of Russia is wrong, its missing Caucasus land like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kars, and its missing Finland, the rest of the video is very good though so I wouldn't care tbh
If you are talking about the Russian Empire you are right
There's no other Russia we could be talking about@@glennlgg6871
@@glennlgg6871this video is about WW1
@weirdguylol in the beginning of WW1 it was the Russian Empire. 🙄
@@glennlgg6871 then why are you asking if he is talking about the Russian Empire??
Britain didn't really go to war over Belgium, any more than Germany went to war over Serbia. Britain went to war because German control of the English Channel with its fancy new navy and unlimited access to the world ocean through captured French ports would have been an existential threat to the British Empire. Belgium gave them a convenient excuse.
The Germans did not control the English Channel at all.
Look up "Corbett Report WWI conspiracy"
@@Astuga Or don't. Just the same old ignorant conspiracy theory bullsh1t.
@@brucetucker4847 You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink.
@@Astuga
I mean you can also lead the horse to poison and you cant blame it for not wanting to drink
"There would be revolutions. How wrong they all were."
-Bolsheviks: "What were we, a joke to you?"
Ever looked Into that? Less of a Popular Uprising, more of Kerensky thinking the Bolsheviks HE IMPRISONED were loyal to him, then arming them.
Germany also had a revolution.
So did Turkey, Hungary, various Russian separatist states. Even Italy to a degree.
Yes
@@frank-2martialoffrankoslav151 they did have popular support, though. at least by the urban populations. they took cities like moscow with barely a fight, while siberia took a WHILE. but that's mostly due to transport tbf
the fact that literally no one blames Serbia or Russia for WW1 is just astonishing.
The Russians barely impacted anything in WW1 by nature of being too broke to arm their soldiers, much less clothe and feed them...
Russia tends to fail when it becomes broke. It's massive size and population don't affect that.
russia??? for backing their ally? if they didn't, there would have been a revolution right there in 1914. stability, my friend, is of the essence. and that's what the russians didn't have
Agreed. Russia is the major power that mobilized first. If they hadn't the war would have not spread and would have been over very quickly.
the fallout from NOT defending serbia would have been far worse than (at least what was percieved) as a one to two year long war against austria and/or germany
In think in the immortal words of Captain Blackadder 'WW1 happened because it was just too much like hard work not to have a war." I also don't think ppl had realised how bad it was going to be.
Yes, British adhesion to the Franco-Russian bloc was a factor, a reasonable safeguard in 1904 but a dangerously destablising element as Russia recovered from defeat and domestic upheaval. But who had initiated the deadly 1879-1914 alliance system? Why, none other than Germany and Austria-Hungary, the two powers that were resolved on war in the wake of Sarajevo. Britain miscalculated in continuing to reinforce an Entente that should have remained a loose diplomatic grouping, but it wasn't responsible for turning a crisis into a catastrophe.
I actually wrote my Senior Dissertation on the cause of world war 1, (history major), and after looking at everything i came to the conclusion that at its heart, Franz Joseph 1 of Austria essentially created most of the problems that led to the great war. There was a rising movement in Austria-Hungary for constitutional reforms, like what England had already gone through, and he really didnt like the Serbians or even Hungarians very much. He was a brutal leader who isolated Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand, his heir, because Ferdinand was one of the only advocates for human rights and a constitution. Its actually quite ironic that the serbs assassinated him, because he was literally the only on on their side, and if he had simply been able to ascend to the throne, he would have likely gone down as a great leader who reformed Austro-Hungary and led them into the modern day as a world power.
There was quite a bit about Franz Joseph, the more i looked into him the more i grew to despise the man, thats why i came to the conclusion that he was essentially to blame for the war, but it was a while ago when I wrote it and I cant really recall details. History is fascinating though.
Everyone wanted that war, that's the problem, if they didn't it would be a new little war in the Balkans, between the old empire and the one that wanted to become one.
Serbia wanted to expand to the west. Let's not forget that Serbs were a minority in Bosnia, and other ethnic groups had no problems with the AH occupation. FF wanted to reform the country, and the likely way was to create a South Slavic part equal to Austria and Hungary. That's why the Hungarians didn't like him. It would be a big obstacle for Serbia in its plans to expand to the west. The Slavs in AH were obsessed with pan-Slavism, and Serbia wanted its own empire.
Franz Joesph started a war. The European Powers caused World War 1. France and England getting involved in the scuffle pouring gasoline on a small fire caused the war to fully escalate. If France and Britain remained neutral it wouldn't have been a bloodbath but Russian called on its allies because they knew it was possible they would lose in an open confrontation with Germany which it did indeed lose. Germany would have split up the Balkans with Austria and the balance of power would completely shift. This is why World War 1 happened. It was a concieted effort to keep a balance of power in order to ironically prevent a massive European war.
From the perspective of a Serbian nationalist the Archduke was probably the worst deal. He will throw you a bone so most of the people get pacified, but you still end up being part of a dying empire you wanted to get out of. So if they actually wanted to sustain their nationalist movement the Archduke needed to go away.
@@tortenschachtel9498 I agree
Well, as we all are, Franz Josef was a child of his time, born in 1830. His upbringing and education left him widely untouched by the ideas of modernity like republicanism or constitutionalism what makes him pretty reactionary. Being a devout catholic does not help much there. As people get older it becomes subsequently harder to make a change of mind or of heart, so he was pretty sure it was his divine duty to rule all the lands to which he had titles. He also did not give much thought about whether his subjects were Germans or Bohemians, they were his to rule. And he was not lazy, he was a man of discipline. That said, he had no mind for those new ideas his successor came up with, he was that anachronistic.
I blame Austria 90 percent honestly. It all comes down to their demands at the end of the day. People just don’t blame them anymore because they’ve been done in during multiple wars
Yep, it was Austria. And you can't say they didn't pay for it; even the Ottoman Empire wasn't quite that thoroughly dismembered.
Ottoman empire was dismembered even worse, with Turkish lands being colonized. They just punched everyone's teeth in for and kept all of Anatolia. Greek, French, Armenian, Italian, etc.
Do you even know what their demands were? Probably not. Serbia agreed to all Austrian demands except for one. That Austrian police is allowed to investigate in Serbia. Serbian refused this point because the entire Serbian political class was in on the assassination.
@@aksmex2576well but most of the ottoman land was their colonies, the arabs revolted with the entent, so the ottomans would always lose a shit tin of land to the new kingdoms and empires created by the opressed servants
More like Serbia 90 percent because of much of their government financially and politically supporting the terrorist group responsible for the assassination. Serbia also refused to hand over the person most closely associated with the three assailants, all of whom were members of that same group. Furthermore, they had been advised to start an investigation and refused prior to the ultimatum. Note - the leader of this group was executed in 1917 by Serbia and admitted involvement, the military attaché of Russia admitted knowing of it, and the Serb Prime Minister admitted to knowing of it (post-war for the latter two). But the winners write history, so despite it being basically accepted fact at this point Serbia is still the poor innocent victim of the big bad Austria-Hungary and (for some reason) the even bigger badder Germany.
As a Serb, Brits are not to be blamed for the great war. Austria had already set its eyes on Serbia, and Bulgaria was in a constant warmongering state, because they always seemed unhappy with the land they received , so much so that they went in a new war against its previous allies just to lose more land, which in return, made them even more land-hungry. Assassination of the Archduke was just the fatal crack in the already old and miss functioning dam... Also, by that time, unrest in their empire met a new level. Nationalism rises, South Slavs want to unite, Ethnic groups want to get to their mother countries or create a new one... even Hungarians didnt like the idea of having a war... And lets not even start about the fact that Austrians couldnt do anything to Serbia without German and Bulgarian help... Austria arguably inherited the nickname of the ottoman empire: "sick man from bosphorus ( in this case Central Europe)". Their pride and greed is what made them collapse.
This video also completely ignores the Austro-Hungarian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina which is what Princip (who was ethnically Serbian citizen of Bosnia) and his accomplices were so angry over. 1914 was not 1815 and the rise of nationalism during the 19th century meant that people in Europe were no longer willing for themselves and their countries to be traded between great powers like cattle. It took a few decades but that's also what finally ended the European colonial empires in Asia and Africa. And Austria-Hungary itself was a relic of bygone days, it was a purely dynastic creation of disparate territories and cultures with no core national ethnic group.
This guy just leaves things out or lies to make his agenda sound right but he is just wrong
No need to tell As a serb. Your biased views showed it.
@@Angelcynn-x9mPoint out what exactly did he say wrong, or offer alternative theory
And we can all tell you’re a Serb. Enough said…
Germany wasn't backing Austria "so strongly" they wrote a note to Austria telling them not to start anything. But Russia and France prematurely ejaculated their mobilization so Germany had to also. Britain did nothing to cuase or provoke this war which was a European war until Germany invaded Belgium. It is more likely than not that Britain would have stayed out of the war regardless whether Germany won or not just as they did in the 1870 Franco-Prussia war because it suited Britain to see a divided Europe. Less hassle that way.
Britain was not to solely blame for ww1, there’s an interesting documentary on how the origins of the conflict lay in the balkans and Eastern Europe.
It all depends how far back in history you go. Maybe the Ottomans or Mongols are to blame 😉
Germany is the only one at fault.
@@glennlgg6871 hot dog.
@@Samuil-iq6eb lol, no, this isn't WW2. the leaders and elites of all great powers are at fault. but if you want to blame specific countries, in my opinion it makes more sense to blame austria and britain instead of germany for the WW1
@@jeanivanjohnson WWII was grey, WWI was Germany's fault lmao, learn basic history before embarrassing yourself. 😂🤣
Heavy blame should be assigned to France, whose entire foreign policy was built on revenge against Germany for the 1870 loss in the Franco-Prussian War and regaining Alsace. They were determined to go to war long before Princip assassinated Archduke Ferdinand.
i dont think so.
france has not only lost alsace lorraine (an economically important state), and made it easier for germany to invade france in the massive plains and fields of france, addition to the fact a massive iron mine is very very close to the german borders because of the change in borders.
but they also made france diplomatically isolated, making it a nightmare to make allies, and risking in the path of making important allies that the germans could invade a fragile france (a fear the military had, even tho that didnt happen, but in retrospect, it was very possible).
and lastly, the massive war reparations and occupation made france pissed off soo much, they wished to fight to the very last blood.
germany knew with the peace treaty they made for france that they would make a lifetime ennemy, and blamming france for such is also saying that the treaty of versailles was easy for the germans and wasnt the reason why ww2 happened.
@@yesno8371And Prussia punished France so badly because of what Napoleone I did to the HRE and for France trampling on German states each time they had beef with Austria. What goes around, comes around.
@@hammer3721 and france punished prussia heavily after the seven years war. What goes around, comes around.
(and yes, france did fight prussia in a land battle just in case)
@@yesno8371 You realise that I can go even further with this, right? Remove your French arrogance for a second and realise both countries had reasons to want to weaken one another, not just poor, innocent France.
@@hammer3721 yet, you completely went around on what i meant in the first place.
as my point still stands, france isnt to blame for ww1, even the arguement that "it was because of france that wished for war with germany and heavy blame should go to france" is a bit of stretch to say the least.
and not to forget, at the time, france had every justifiable reason to wish for war against germany, given its impact on french society and overall nation, something which is common in pretty much any country that suffered due to a war.
not only that, at the time, politics in germany were complex, with many contradictory ideas from others, but in the military for instance, they wished an early war with france and russia to finish them off before they get too powerful, which was also a fear france had. Not only that, the german kaiser wilhelm II personally wished for prosperity amongst german neighbors, even tried to buddy up with russia and france, which shows how complicated ww1 truly is.
at the end, no one is to blame for ww1, as the war was inevitable due to one reason : The aftermath of the treaty of vienna. Which in paper, promised no more big wars with heavy involvement on it, as the wars were to be almost like a border clash more than a serious war the past centuries experienced (napoleonic wars, seven years war, 100 years war ect...)
however, because there were no such big wars that would define a true winner, it ended up creating a bitterness defeat and wishing for a big war.
even if the aftermath of the treaty of vienna did (at some extent) lead for hopes in massive wars, treaty of vienna remains a way better option than anything, as long as humans wanted war, there were going to be wars, no matter the treaty.
in conclusion : no country is to blame for ww1, it was due to events, which earlier or later, would lead to a massive war like ww1.
ps : french arrogance ?
The common part of all this is that different states are to blame for the contributing factors they played, to further this point even within countries different factions and groups contributed in their own ways; the Tsar was against war with Austria since he had a Austrian wife by the socialist and military factions pressured him to go to war, they then also blamed him for losing it and later for starting it (tough break), the German Socialists Party found themselves silent when the war broke out as a means of maintaining their political power in Germany, Britain as a means to protect itself from any war entrapped herself within a web of allies which the media claimed she had to protect leading to the war that effectively killed her empire.
Russia wanted to dominate eastern Europe.
France wanted it's land back and no great power threat.
Britain wanted to maintain the balance of power.
Germany wanted to seize the time before Russia could modernize.
Austria wanted to survive.
Bulgaria wanted land.
Ottoman Empire wanted to not get partitioned.
And Serbia ?
@@Terric90 I suppose Serbia wanted to unite the South Slavs, however the true ideals of Gavrilo Princip himself are relatively unknown, at least to someone like me.
franc stol
The French wanted the German land that they stole back.
The most accurate and unbiased statement of World War I I’ve ever seen. Good job. 👍🏻
"Russia gets it's army ready just in case" at that point the Tsar had committed to war. Russia escalated a regional conflict into a continent wide total war despite no formal agreement.
"There would be revolutions, how wrong they were" [revolutions tear apart most of the nations involved]
"casts its jealous eye" Jealousy is coveting what you already have. Envy is coveting what others have.
"Morocco is being treated to some colonialism" the Barbary pirates inflicted a far more cruel oppression on Europeans before they finally had enough of being kidnapped and enslaved.
Britain is to blame for everything bad in the world donchaknow! The BBC will confirm this! The world would have been a utopia if it weren't for them. We'd all be living in harmony.
😂
It’s to be blamed for everything that has happened in the world since the ice sheet melted and exposed that little island of the French coast.
That would be the USA
Britain was to blame for everything bad in the world before passing that torch to the US.
0:26 Bro what are these borders 💀
What’s your issue with them? They taken from here: github.com/aourednik/historical-basemaps
@@unheardhistory Most of the maps I found on that page are unbelievably inaccurate.
Looks pretty accurate to me...
@@zkittlezthabanditt604 1. Serbia's border with Austria-Hungary in the north was along the Danube and Sava, no further than that.
2. Bessarabia was controlled by Russia until March 1918.
3. Eupen-Malmedy belonged to Germany until the Treaty of Versailles.
To add onto this,
1)Romania's transylvania border is horribly drawn
2) Northern Schleswig belonged to Germany during ww1, they gave it up at the treaty of versailles
Britain is at fault as much as everyone else is for the war. Being in an alliance is not a crime, nor is upholding your guarantee of independence to Belgium when it is invaded by German troops
Thanks for your comment. I’m not outright saying that having an alliance is the problem more that given that Britain didn’t have anything close to an alliance for the previous century it means they have to be careful when you can shift the balance of power so much. It was absolutely right to uphold the guarantee though
they had all the right in the world to defend belgium, but the brits are to partially to be blamed that it even got that far in the first place. I think that is the point of the video. Britain shuld've mediated and de-escalated the situation when they were asked for help by Germany, but instead they ignored it, probably because they thought they can sit on their arses whilst the continetnal powers fight each other and in the end only Britain would be left.
Germany is the sole reason the war started lmao, learn history before commenting.
Germany, as well as the UK, guaranteed Belgian neutrality and independence in the treaty that created Belgium from the Catholic portion of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
510 subs for this amount of quallity, damn. You are going to become a huge youtuber one day, remember me when that happens.
because pointless videos by idiots attract more views unfortunately
This is a very poor video with glaring inconsistencies and poor research.
Railways are to blame. Seriously, all mobilisation plans relied on exactly scheduled railway transportation, meaning they had cutoff points and timetables around mobilizing. Russia needed 30 days in advance, which was the slowest of the major powers, and thus had to get their forces ready first. Now, when Russia mobilised, everyone else followed, and since that train cannot be stopped anymore once it has picked up speed, there was no more stopping the war from happening.
Ah!, a fan of A.J.P. Taylor
So your argument is basically like “Britain got too strong, which scared Germany, therefore is to blame”
Thats not really how it works.
Ikr
No it is Germany was getting too strong, which scare Britain, therefore Britain got involved where it should not have. Also France was seeking its war of revenge against Germany for 1870-71.
@josephalavezzo8232 Britain wasn't scared of Germany, it couldn't even beat France without invading Belgium
@@SomtejesstudiosIt’s not like they can’t beat france just that they wanted to beat france quickly because of the russian threat on the east
This reminds me of how Russian spies will argue online that the west "forced" Putin to invade Ukraine
Everyone has some guilt, even france who didnt do anything when russia mobilized its army so early, and when Germany pleaded for France to negotiate with Russia they did nothing
They didn't nothing because they couldn't trust the germans. Mobilisation takes time, if they told the Russians to stop and they did it would have created a big window of opportunity for Germany to attack either.
If anyone is at fault more than any other than its your username picture Austro-Hungary.
@@ChrisCrossClash But their heir got murdered. Russia on the other hand immediately pulled the nuclear option because they really wanted to go to war.
@@meganoob12 No you have it mixed up Austria-Hungary wanted war with Serbia, they sent Serbia a list of demands over an investigation into the murder of the Arch Duke in their country and Serbia agreed to all the demands except one, and still Austria declared war on them, they wanted war end of story.
Germany should have thought of that bafore stealing Alsace-Lorraine.
so what you are saying, is that austria is to blame for ww1. This video dosent explain how ww1 is britians fault, creating an alliance isnt something to be blamed for.
Fr
Way I see it they didn't make anything to stop the war either so yes, they are absolutely at fault
@@maximipe A war germany and austria started
@@maximipe 😂😂Oh love it, like always sad pathetic Anglophobes yourself like to blame everything on Britain.
@@orpheonkatakrosmortarchoft4332 because they were threatned by Russia... Because Russia lied and escalated the entire situation.
Germany asked Great Britain for help, but they were ignored
I recall a book(unfortunately can recall name or author) that made a case that everyone wanted war , but nobody wanted the blame for it. And so, the assassination and the substituent events provided the perfect fig leaf.
The Guns of August?
@@Thor_Odinson yes that's the one. Thanks.
I thought this was a huge history channel that I’ve just never come across, I would be convinced you’d have around 50k subs if I didn’t look, keep up the good videos!👍
Thanks, it’s appreciated 🙏🏽
What? Only 374 subscribers?
Okayyyyy….. I’ll hit the Subscribe button….
@@daveirwin6903Absolutely! So did I.
If he turns down the background music so that you can hear what he's saying, he might well get those 50k subs.
3:20 I hate to be that guy, but you missed Elsass-Lothringen (Alsace-Lorraine), and both northern and southern Schleswig.
Be that guy haha. Always happy to learn more 👍🏽
@@unheardhistory Same with 1:14; Finland was part of/grand duchy ruled by Russia till December 1917.
You also put Bessarabia as a part of Romania in the map, even though it should be Russian as, well, it WAS at that time
An aspect that's seldom considered on the short war point is that the nitrate for making munitions had long been sourced from the Pacific Coast of S. America. In the British VP their Royal Navy would block German access, and in short order dictate terms. They didn't predict the consequence of tech innovation as the Heber Bosch process allowed nitrates to be sourced directly out of thin air. German munition manufacture became a desperate problem, but the challenge was overcome to the chagrin of all those who bet lives against tech innovation. Japan made a similar miscalculation and that's how they got nuked. If I'm right, then you can heap more blame on the British. As the World Leading Nation, the Foreign Office could have advocated for the status quo... had there been adults in the room, the Serbian incident could easily become an obscure foot note. Strangely, total war was an easy sale to the Age of Innocence. A period of otherwise remarkable peace. Where would the world be today had the Twentyth Century not been squandered on every size of bombs... and all that Megadeath turned to productive ends?🎉
Honestly, every instance of "Britain did it" you pointed to in this video was just Germany behaving aggressively, and then Britain reacting to it. Almost like Kaiser Wilhelm is to blame.
Nope. The Kaiser was trying until the last minute to get the Britain and France to talk sense with the Russians. At the time, mobilization was considered an act of war, and Russia was the first to call a general mobilization. If Germany didn't react, it would've been crushed. The Russian Tsar didn't want war, but he was undermined by members of his cabinet who insisted that Austria should be taught a lesson.
@@maxn.7234 The Kaiser was the initial cause of the War. Read about the "blank cheque" letter sent from the German Government to the Austro-Hungarians.
@@petergaskin1811 I'm aware of the "blank cheque," which has been massively overplayed to push blame on the Kaiser. While the blank cheque was diplomatically inept, it did not cause hostilities to commence. All it did was make the Austrian-Hungarians overconfident in the backing of Germany, which in turn caused them to push hard to punish the Serbs. What precipitated hostilities was the general mobilization of the Russian army. Tsar Nicholas waffled back and forth with Kaiser Willem about rescinding the order to mobilize, but in the end Nicholas was weak and couldn't stand up to his advisors who were itching for a war against Austria-Hungary. The Kaiser was in the center of everything, but he tried to get everyone to calm down, not go to war.
@@maxn.7234 Give it a rest you absolute t ool, that's right are you one of them that blame Britain for everyting?
@@petergaskin1811 the "blanque check" was an attempt to localize the conflict thought... The Germans and the Kaiser knew that conlfict was unavoidable after the assassination, but believing that the overwhelming force of the German backing of A-H would quickly end it in a localized war they gave this "blanque check". Russia was a complete wild card who acted against common sense and established diplomatic practices and escalated the situation into a global war.
The Russians were the actual agressors.
So Britain encircled Germany so Germany needed to invade France and Russia. Isn't this a bit like the Putin argument? "The Anglo-Saxons have surrounded Russia, so we need to invade Ukraine." I don't think it adds up either way. Instead Primat Der Innenpolitik.
I smell a new war arising.
Wrong! You only smell your pure stink feet!
On your map Finland was part of the (then) Tsarist Russian Empire. Also for Britain’s much longer role research Halford Mackinder and how Britain bankrupt needed that costly Second Boer War (underestimate Boer capability) yet desperate for gold mines. Why? We had second Industrial Revolution on Germany (Diesel) and America and rise of Japan and unification of Italy. Britain was spent and it needed some sort of alliance than on paper goes against the trend as Russia always distrusted Britain for over 200 years.
Russia and France were the UK's principal enemies for the 250 years prior to WW1, (France for very much longer), and arguably still are. Only the idiot Liberal party would involve the UK in a land war to defend our principal enemies against a traditional ally, all for the financial benefit of our main economic opposition. Sadly the descendents of these idiots still control the civil service and judiciary of the UK today
What a load of B.S seriously.
@@ChrisCrossClash Go back to school or read a few decent school textbooks
Very informative and interesting! The editing is top quality. Just gained another sub. Also could you make a video about the Treaty of Trianon and how it affected/affects Hungary?
Much love from The land of Árpád!
Thanks for the feedback. It's appreciated
I've not heard of that treaty but I'm always on the lookout for something new to cover
Without knowing that they would get the support from UK , Russia and France would have never ever have attacked Germany. And they knew it from 1904 in French case, and from 1907 in the case of Russia. They knew they would have British support in case of war, and they behaved aggressively against Germany.
The ententes definitely indicated they’d get British support if they were attacked by Germany. But the reality is that Russia technically was and France defended Russia, which everyone expected. But Britain didn’t declare war then. It waited got the Belgium incident. But ultimately I can’t see how Britain would have allowed Germany to dominate Europe so much and so it’s possible they would have done something regardless
Russia and France attacked Germany???? Pro-German revisionism here is just ridicuIous....
Actually France was very concerned almost to the last minute that Britain would not support them. There was nothing legal that committed Britain to supporting France. And as Russia was hardly popular in Britain supporting the war for Russia's sake would have probably brought the government down. Britain's real reason for joining in was the realisation that if they did not join in then whoever won would be totally hostile to an isolated Britain.
This is silly. Here are a few scenarios that could have prevented World War I without Britain’s involvement:
Austria attacks Serbia immediately: If Austria had launched its attack on Serbia without escalating into a larger conflict, war could have been avoided.
Austria accepts Serbian terms: Had Austria chosen to accept the terms proposed by Serbia, a major conflict might have been averted.
Germany localizes the war: If Germany had focused on containing the conflict and preventing it from spreading, World War I could have been avoided.
France refuses to support Russia: If France had declared that it would not back Russia in its actions against Germany, the war might not have occurred.
What about the Austrian demands to Serbia of which the Serbians accepted almost everything and Austria still said fuck it we'll invade?
What? 😅
True. Austria’s demands were basically designed to be unacceptable to Serbia to give them an excuse to invade.
Everything except the most important, an independent investigation that would show the organizers of the assassination. Let's not forget that AH military circles felt responsible and wanted revenge (the incompetent General Potjorek).
In any case, it would be only a small local conflict, two wars have been fought in the Balkans in the past few years (1. all against the Turks, 2. all against the Bulgarians). Russia and other great powers wanted that war, they are all to blame for the more or less unimportant (for most) local war becoming a general slaughterhouse.
@@drazenbicanic3590Actually, Serbia wanted an international investigation, not an Austrian one
Excluding Austria, all other Great Powers agreed.
there's a big difference between what *triggered* the war and what *caused* the war.
Tensions were building over decades and it was bound to happen sooner or later.
Don't agree with this analysis. The war was about who dominated Eastern and Central Europe. Russia and Germany shared a long border in what is now Poland. Moltke was the head of the German army and he was also running foreign policy because the Kaiser was weak. The Russians had a large army which was rapidly modernising located on Germany's border. Moltke wanted to crush the Russians before this army became too powerful. He didn't care about navies or colonies. He didn't care about the tiny British army, it was irrelevant. Bismarck had said he would send the police to arrest Britain's army if it landed in Europe. France made the mistake of getting drawn into the war by supporting Russia. Britain did not have a treaty with France or Russia. The British Cabinet was split, but it concluded it had a moral duty to protect Belgium, not France or Russia. Britain tried on numerous occasions to organize a peace conference in the months before the war, but the German ambassador in London was ignored by Berlin. Moltke was the war's architect. The best analysis of the causes of the war was done by Margaret Macmillan an Oxford professor. Her grandfather David Lloyd George cast the deciding vote in the British Cabinet in 1914, and he became prime minister in 1916.
For your comment, I just conclude that France is to blame, not Germany lol
After what Belgium did in The Congo, they weren't worth defending.
The Germans were becoming a threat to British economic dominance. So, the British did what they always did. They manufactured a war to bring down their rival.
@@edlawn5481don't forget what the British did to the Boers. Which, would've been the point when the Germans would've gone to war with Britain if they wanted one.
Moltke's actions seem to have been a large contributing factor to the war. I particularly enjoyed the 3 hr dramatization "37 Days" in which Ian McDiarmid (known to many as Emperor Palpatine) played Sir Edward Grey.
Did anyone notice the quote "Verdun is a Human Slaughterhouse". (1:00) Take it from me, that is true. Because I have a lot of family that live in that region of France and I have seen military graveyards, bones of unidentified solderers at Fort Douaumont at the ossuary. My mum was brought up in a farming village which has a small river flowing past it. Inside that river, we found bullets, shells, cartridges, parts of a rifle, part of a helmet and even an American solder's dog tags.
There is one small village which was near Fort Douaumont called Fleury-devant-Douaumont which was completely destroyed during the shelling of Douaumont. In fact the French forgot that the village even existed and then they realised it, when the church bell (which was the only thing that survived the shelling) was discovered in the mid 80s.
There is also certain parts of land around Verdun called Zone Rouge which is still contaminated by human and animal remains, you have unexploded bombs and landmines which are still live to this day. part of Zone Rouge are still heavily polluted by the poisonous chemicals that were used during the war.
Title: "Nobody blames the British!"
Meanwhile: literally every WW1 video's comments section is full of malding Kaiserboos crying about the British like they're the International Jewish Conspiracy, and getting zero pushback bcs everyone else doesn't care enough to contradict them.
Why is it that Kaiserboos pretend they are the underdogs of historical truth when they are in fact the leading form of established pseudohistory among the masses?
Eminently true! Germany and Austria-Hungary are the sole to blame.
@@Samuil-iq6eband British Empire
@@Greensanctuary-c4w No lmao, learn history.
Tbh I hate Imperial Germany but there's more truth to idea of the british scheming stuff than there ever was to jews since Britain controlled the world's economy & ruled 1/4 of the planet and very much wanted to keep things that way unlike the jewish people who were only a diaspora hated for being a diaspora that was forced to do finances because they werent allowed to own land at allTbh I hate Imperial Germany but there's more truth to idea of the british scheming stuff than there ever was to jews since Britain controlled the world's economy & ruled 1/4 of the planet and very much wanted to keep things that way unlike the jewish people who were only a diaspora hated for being a diaspora that was forced to do finances because they werent allowed to own land at all
The problem with kaiserboos isnt that they rightfully blame Britain for being an asshole every step of the way, it is that Germany was an even bigger asshole and when they lost they blamed the aforementioned jews(and other minorities) for it
Mainly because the fact that they are kind of right. While yes Germany and AH do have a lot of blame, as the reasons stated in the video, Britain does deserve some blame. Its why most historians state that everyone was to blame for WW1, saying it was only Germany and AH is derived from Propaganda by the Entente, and based on your comment and another in this thread, it seems it has worked.
Great video! The maps are a nice addition and I thoroughly enjoyed the rhymes 😅
I wouldn't say Britain had much to do with this war's outbreak. Yes it did create the entente but as a reaction to Germany's moves and Austria and Serbia are the real countries responsible for the war
The video does get to this point. Britain didn't want the war and wasn't being completely reckless, but it did create conditions that isolated Germany (even if Germany was being aggressive at times)
Everyone wanted to settle old scores, otherwise it would just be a small local war.
@@drazenbicanic3590 yes
Not quite. It's really Turkiye and Germany.
@@JohnDove-d8d why those two?
Britain would have joined he war later anyway to “support its ally France”, Belgium was just an excuse. The “support its ally France” line is also excuse, Britain just wanted to destroy the German empire or at the very least ruin its economy (that means blockading it and starving millions of Germans during the war). Why you ask? Because Germany just surpassed Britain’s economic dominance a decade or so earlier, mainly through trade which was what the Germans did the naval buildup for, to protect the trade fleet in case of war with Britain, and look how right they were, mainly Admiral Tirpitz who predicted the British naval blockade years earlier.
And then Britain dragged the US into the war, because they demanded US Ships supply Britain, while not allowing those same US Ships to supply Germany.
Self fulfilling prophecy. If Britain saw Germany/Prussia as a threat she had many opportunities since 1871 to cripple her. No land fighting even needed as a blockade and the swift fall of Germanys colonies would be the end of it. Britain as the world’s leading naval power was a status quo at this point and hadn’t been an issue for the last centuries. Additionally Britain was on shaky terms with both France and Russia and saw them less favourable until Germany built its fleet. Germany was never going to win the colonial and navy game it was futile. Also America had a bigger economy but wasn’t necessarily an instant inevitable enemy by any means. Also people are just looking at the economy of the British isles and going “Oh wow Germany and America had bigger economies”. When in reality Britain was a global empire and the combined economy of the empire was still firmly twice as large as any over rivals. With the bonus the Britain controlled/owned most of the USA investment and infrastructure and many other nations had large parts of their economy in Britains investors and bankers pockets. All in all it was a force about as dominant as the USA was in ‘60-90s at the time. Nothing was needed just to sit back and unify with the dominions and from there govern the empire together. Britain was pretty content with its position.
5:52 "No, nothing in history is that neat and tidy." Nazi Germany nods its head in agreement.
You can somewhat blame the Treaty of Versailles for creating the conditions that lead to the rise of the Nazi party.
Good POV - haven’t thought about that angle before! Subbed
You must work for the Irish/Scottish department of " Blame every last thing on the English"
Any Scot who ciritizes the English should stfu and come to the realisation that they are as guilty as their fellow Germanic English (no, Scottish people are primarily not celtic) of crimes that were commited in the empires history. The Irish got a pass though, they realy were shit upon by the Scottish and English.
Replace the english with french and you're correct
@dean_l33 What do the irish and the scottish have to do with france?
@@greenlamped2842 You blame everything on the french. Simple as
@@dean_l33 It's you French that blame everything on Britain, seriously that is a fact.
Referencing the "Great Game" as the real start of WW1 is brilliant...spot on, as well
Well done Lad
i seriusly dont get understand how britain is guilty of the great war, based on this, they simply proetected their interests, by war if needed, whats the average thing a country does, and they wouldnt have said "its a war in mainland europe that isnt gonna hurt us", because the napoleonic wars have proven the opposite.
Partly because Britain got uptight about an expanded German navy, but didn't get upset over an expanded US navy and at the time the US saw war against Britain as a possibility and had a plan up to the 1930s. The US also had a huge population of German background.
Look up: "Corbett Report WWI conspiracy"
@@alanbrookes275 What? the US wasn't big at all in 1914? you are seriously just making up sh*t.
@@Astuga Look up "Aircraft of Nuremberg" and "Deutschland und der Nächste Krieg, 1911"
I agree. The rivalry that Germany felt with Britain always struck me as one-sided, at least to begin with. Great Britain simply reacted to a threat. This video has not convinced to change my mind.
The question is if Britain was by treaty obliged to defend Belgium's neutrality. Article 7 of the Treaty of London that is always invoced only obliged Belgium to remain neutral. And before 1914 the UK did not think it was obliged to defend Belgium(C Clarke, The Sleepwalkers). Certain hawks within the English government just wanted the war. Most English certainly did not want a war. But some key players did ( e g Grey).
WW1 was caused by craziness, pettiness, ambition, alliances and leaders who did not yet fully appreciate how destructive that modern warfare had become. WW2 was basically caused by WW1. WW3 will be caused because of leaders who are crazy and ambitious, and who have forgotten how destructive that WW2 was, and how even more deadly that modern warfare has become since that time.
They consider WW2 as the second round (continuation) of the first war
It’s a great video. But why is the map at 4:47 so strange? Instead of owning Finland they have modern day borders with them . Also Tannu Tuva is Controlled by Russia which at that point it wasn’t. Also in the Caucasus Russia has it modern borders but it should control: Abkhazia, Georgia, South Ossetia, aserbaidjan and Armenia
"Minister Britian has had the same foreign policy for atleast the last 300 years, to keep Europe disunited... Divide and rule, why stop now when it's worked so well." Sir Humphry
This is a really good channel, I hope you continue I could see this channel reaching thousands of subscribers with this amount of quality in the videos
Even your own video highlights that it was a series of German actions, building up its navy and sending ships to Morocco are two examples, that drove Britain into the arms of France. Even with the Triple Entente Britain probably would not have entered the war if Germany had not invaded Belgium. So it seems to me that putting any significant blame on Britain is a huge stretch.
It's interesting to contemplate a world where Britain didn't enter WW I. No Britain in the war would have meant no US war loans to the British, and thus probably no US involvement, and no Balfour Declaration the absence of which might have done wonders for peace in the Middle East.
The English always created alliances against the strongest EU land power, divide et impera.
@@drazenbicanic3590 Britain worked to maintain a balance of power on the continent but stayed out of permanent alliances for most of the 19th century. Britain preferred to play the continental powers off of each other while remaining aloof themselves.
This policy, called Splendid Isolation, was the main British diplomatic strategy of the 19th century. Britain avoided permanent alliances from around 1815 (some say 1822) to 1902 when they signed an alliance with Japan after failing to come to agreements with Russia or Germany.
@@Valicroix When France was the first continental power, England made alliances against it, when Germany took the primacy..... When Russia became a threat with victories against the Turks, see the Crimean War
@@drazenbicanic3590 The Crimean war was an alliance of convenience in the same way that the US joining WW I was an alliance of convenience.
These weren't permanent alliances. Google "Britain Splendid Isolation." Britain stayed out of long term permanent alliances through most of the 19th century.
@@drazenbicanic3590 The alliances against the French were prior to 1815. The Crimean War was an alliance of convenience in much the same way as the US joining WW I was an alliance of convenience.
These weren't permanent alliances. Google "Britain Splendid Isolation." Britain stayed out of long term permanent alliances through most of the 19th century in order to give it the flexibility to pursue, as you point out, its main strategy of maintaining a balance of power on the continent.
So "Splendid Isolation" was a means to an end rather than an end in itself.
Is it Britains fault that Germany chose to invade another nation ?
Yea tell that to Belgium.
imagine a notorious brit complaints about the invasion of other countries lol
@@zurgesmiecal What a pointless observation
@@otakunthevegan4206 I'm pretty sure they know they've been invaded by Germany twice
@@garrymartin6474 notorious brits declared war on a prosperous Germany twice, causing tens of millions death and Europe destroyed
The Franco-Russian alliance was established before the Anglo-Franco entente cordiale which means that this video really doesn't make that much sense. Nevermind that the entente cordiale is not an actual alliance, just a piece of paper that says that the two should act as friends and if they feel like it help them in a defensive war.
This has to be on of the most brain dead takes on what started the war I've ever seen
I’m wondering why many blame Germany but not as many blame Austria-Hungary
Because Austro-Hungary was the lesser power in that alliance. It is not entirely fair, but Germany is blamed for making it a general war rather than a local conflict.
@@mjbull5156 wasn’t Germany’s reason for starting that whole mess because of Russian Mobilization?
@IronicR to a certain extent, yes, and Czar Nicholas got bullied into mobilizing by his advisors, who told him he would look weak if he did not.
Why would anybody blame Serbia at all?
Germany had alliances with Russia before Kaiser Wilhelm messed that up. The Kaiser was also related to the British royal family. He also asked Mexico to go to war with the US which was one of the reasons the US used to enter the war.
A lazy, convoluted attempt to blame Britain, badly presented.
Did you know that Germany could have been targeted for its economic might
What do you mean?
I have heard that prior to ww1 Germany had the strongest economy and the British of course wanted to be the best of the best.
Of course. They were also the pinnacle of culture and civilization. The greatest thinkers and inventors were all German. The envy was STRONG. The British people have to be the most cowardly and spiteful people in history... they sit on their island all toasty and secure starting conflicts@@WillGochee
It was partly for that reason and her naval buildup pre WW1 that she was targeted by the British as the 'new French'
@@WillGochee that is simply wrong, prior to WW1, Britains economy was far far far superior to the germans, it wasnt even close, for example: during the naval arms race while Britain was literally building more than twice than what the germans were building, the german economy essentially collapsed and couldnt build anymore, meanwhile Britains economy didnt even even feel the cost of the arms race, thats how large the economic difference was, the French economy was also superior to the germans pre ww1.
There was a revolution, in Russia. Britain already had its empire and wanted to keep it, Germany had imperial ambitions and needed to contest British sea power to achieve them. The Austro/Hungarian Empire was on its last legs and every power involved wanted to pick up bits of it as it came apart. The real culprit is imperialism itself, the desire to maintain it and the desire to achieve it. Britain can take its share of the blame but others share it as well.
I am slow to blame the UK. It's long standing dogma was to ensure that Belgium safe since takeover would poise Germany to cross the channel and invade. It was made perfectly obvious at the Battle of Waterloo when the UK destroyed Napolean. Let's face it: Russia and Germany were late to the game in grabbing up territories and time was running out to gain new prizes. Bottom line: The UK was reasonable in protecting Belgium and Germany and Russia were going to fight anyone to gain more territory.
How come belgium is more important than france for staging an invasion of britain? I thought calais would be much nearer to britain.
Why did it feel the need to protect Belgium? Curiously, at the exact same time Britain was suppressing little old Ireland as an independent state it felt the need to run off to defend little old Belgium? Weird.
Russia was late? You somehow missed they were the biggest country in the world (apart from the British empire with all its dominion).
Britain was itching to go to war with Germany and was looking for any excuse. Germany was on the rise and started to build up their naval power and GB didn’t like that. Germany on the other hand didn’t expect GB to go to war over Belgium.
They didn't even bother to justify Belgium when their whole beef was artificially inflated against just Serbia Serbia and Russia.
It's mind boggling to me how historical revisionism tries to whitewash Germany over a well know fact with excessive amounts of extremely detailed documentation.
Belgium was neutral, unrelated, and on the other side of the European continent- yet they ended up being the first ones to receive flak few months before friggn Serbia that should have been done for.
Austria should have helped Russia during the Crimean War.
The English speaking world won two world wars, neither of which they wanted or started, (in spite of this shallow documentary}, thousands of British, Commonwealth and US troops died in WW1 and WW2. Lest we forget.
SUCH A GOOD VIDEO I LOVE YOUR STYLE
Thanks!
Thank you for the presentation. Thank you for the commentary about the dispute over the causes of The Great War.
It is noteworthy that the presentation begins with how an ethnic group needs its own land. Ethnic groups who were assimilated into the Austria-Hungarian Empire needed their own homeland. In-group preference was denied.
My generation was instructed that Germany caused WWI. But as a non-traditional student in 2007 I was instructed that Great Britain also was to blame because GB was in competition with Germany. The superpowers needed their colonies in order to be supplied with resources.
But no one's gaze seems to linger on that the Slavs supported other Slavs, Poles wanted Poland, and that various ethnic groups wanted to separate.
The Serbs did not want pan-Slavism, but hegemony (as did the Russians) Croats and Muslims were satisfied with the AH occupation of Bosnia (the Austrian administration was an improvement compared to the previous one) F Ferdinand promised the South Slavs (Slovenes, Croats, Bosniaks and even Serbs) the formation of a separate entity in AH, equal to Austria and Hungary (Or they believed it, he was killed, so we don't know what would have happened if it had happened). In any case, this did not suit the Greater Serbs.
You are showing wrong map of Russian Empire. You forgot to include territories of modern day Finland, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia.
Thank you. The map data (borders etc) come from this source: github.com/aourednik/historical-basemaps so I’ll put in a request to have them updated
Your reasons for blaming GB are weak
Womp womp
Nah they’re pretty solid. And he doesn’t blame GB.
If TH-cam didn’t need clickbait, the title would’ve been “GBs part in starting WW1”
*You're
@@gustavusadolphus6097that’s pretty funny
Apart from the Serbs in Bosnia, who were only a minority of the population there, most ethnic groups were not looking leave the empire because the Austrian part of the empire was fairly liberal and gave the ethnic groups in their part of the empire a lot of space. The assassination was in part due to this liberal drive in which the dual monarchy was planning to become a triple monarchy with a Slavic monarch which would have been a big threat to Serb nationalism.
That's right.
The Russians also wanted to break through to the west and used Serbia to provoke a war. (The big thugs send a little rooster to provoke a conflict). The German emperor wanted to prove that he was better than his father. The French sought revenge for Sedan. The English have always caused discord in the EU in order to preserve world hegemony. Well, all the big players wanted that war.
How the fuck did Britain start WW1 when they had been out of continental affairs for 100+ years
This is a lot to digest. Unfortunately the narration is so quick that we scarcely have time to think about what we're hearing.
Governments may have been distrustful of one another, but the citizens were not necessarily. There was a Christmas truce early in the war; the soldiers did not want to fight one another. What treason!
This is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. Right up there with "Poland started WW2 by not handing over Danzig."
Britain had some alliances- therefore it is to blame for other countries attacking each other?
2/10 for general reasoning simpkins
The treaty guaranteeing Belgian neutrality had expired. Britain had no legal obligation to get involved.
No, it hadn't expired.
Source showing the expiration date?
No, it absolutely had not. The text was in perpetuity, and indeed it still applies among those signatories that still exist or their successors.
The treaty was not time bounded, learn!
It wasn’t the first time both sides thought that the war would be over a lot sooner than it was (like the American civil war).
Finland was a part of Russia during WW1.
I thought you were going to mention Germany building a railroad to bypass Britain's Suez Canal...
All of the European powers signed a treaty decades previously, guaranteeing Belgian neutrality. Britain would've stayed out of the war, until Belgium formally requested assistance. At that moment Britain was compelled to fight.
The guilt for the war falls entirely on the person of the Kaiser, not Germany.
The blame entirely lies on Serbia for refusing Austria's incredibly generous ultimatum considering the Heir to Empire was killed by a sect of the Serbian military, You're clearly an Anglo considering the irrational hate for the Kaiser you display in other replies.
@@Prinz8IV8You mean the "Incredibly generous ultimatum" that was clearly intended to be rejected? If anyone's to blame, it's Franz Conrad von Hotzendorf.
@@timesnewlogan2032 Yet they accepted every demand but the last, the one that would have allowed Austria to find out Serbia's involvement in the Black Hand
@@Prinz8IV8 And would have turned Serbia into a de facto client state. The one point they refused was meant to be the deal-breaker, a point so overbearing that it would never be accepted.
@@timesnewlogan2032 Austrian led investigation into the murder of the heir = Client state
I think you have brain damage, I'm done with your idiocy
This is a bad argument. It might be similarly argued that the formation of NATO would be to blame for a Russian invasion of the Baltics, for example.
No matter who's to blame, we all can agree that the Entente were a bunch of hypocrites.
Hell yeah!
Why?
@why-lj5tc So what the central powers had what was coming to them, and they got done.
the definition of a peremptory statement. Used to be heard in the pub around closing time. Now everywhere on social media.
@@DiegoSandoval-wt1yxThank you for your eloquent and substantiated contribution to the argument. Moron
The intricate web of alliances and rivalries leading to WWI is fascinatingly complex. Your breakdown sheds light on Britain's pivotal role amidst the chaos. It's a reminder that history is rarely black and white. Excellent analysis!
The same thing happened in WW2, but most people are not ready for that discussion yet.
But we (British Empire) still weren't responsible for starting the bloody war.
its a modern fashion to blame Great Britain for everything. As is modern fashion to not call Great Britain as it is- Great!
Rule Britannia
Had the Tsar not been overthrown, Russia would have received Constantinople as a reward and would have united the Slav nations and reconstituted the Byzantine Empire which was the Imperial dream. Russia might have affirmed its control over Syria as it was recognised by the Great Powers as the protector of Christians by the Treaty of Berlin.
to bad brits had other plans
Lies and slander.
A feeble attempt at being original - with an even more feeble attempt at humour, presumable aimed at easily impressed thirteen year olds.
Why not? We get blamed for everything else.
You know what, it's at this point we can literally say to everyone, "Fck you, yeah so what", we usually get blamed for everything else. 😂
Germany and had a Austria-Hungary secret agreement? There was an alliance between them. Italy was a member as well. Although they ended up on the same side as Russia, France and Britain(who had an alliance as well) I do not think it was much of a secret!
Italy just wanted to get their hands on some kind of loot without much risk.
This is badly edited and gets if dates all mixed up without correction.
The Franco-Prussian was was in 1870 while the Russo-Japanese was was in 1905. The German plan after the 1870 war was to beggar France in perpetuity.
The German navel build up worries Britain fora very valid reason, they had a HUGE army while the army in Britain is small. If Germany controlled the seas they could invade as they had proven that was their favorite method of getting their own way.
Prior to the naval build up Britain and Germany were close friends as neither could threaten the other. Good fences make for good neighbors
The basic FACT is that Germany violated their sworn word and invaded a country they were pledged to protect. That was Always part of their vaunted Schliffen war plan.
So is "Honoring your sworn promise is wrong?" According to this, Yes.
While there is plenty of blame to share around, the major part must go to Germany for their decades long belligerence and insane methods of 'diplomacy' which revolved around making sure any deals were greatly in their favor, at least 60/40 though 70/30 was preferred. The idea of a fair 50/50 arrangement was anathema to German diplomats
Thanks for your comment
A couple of minor things I want to address.
The Russo-Japanese war took place over 2 years, starting in 1904 and sure I don’t explicitly mention the Franco-Prussian date. So I’m struggling to see how the dates are all mixed up?
Other thing, and I’ll add a pinned comment on this because it wasn’t my intention, I’m not saying that Britain defending Belgium was wrong or it should have done something else at that stage. It was essentially too late to do anything then. My main point is that despite Germany generally being aggressive in Europe, there was room for cooperation in the decades before and arguably Germany would have been easier to work with from a friendlier stance (although this is getting dangerously into counterfactuals, so I’ll stop)
@@unheardhistory Yes, there was scope for co-operation (especially against non-white peoples, as in China in 1900), but Berlin's behaviour made it vastly more difficult. Morocco was small potatoes, a matter of Germany testing Entente resolve rather than seriously threatening to tip Europe into war: the Balkans by then presented the greater source of risk owing to Germany's fatal 1879 alliance with Austria-Hungary.
Russia had more to do with the escalation of the war than any other country. Tsar Nikolas II and his war council started amassing thousands of troops along the German Border, after The Austro-Hingarian Empire sent a list of demands to Serbia to stop the violence, apologize for killing the Duke, and all of the troops to get thee hence. Those Russia troops chomping at the war bit were a clear provocation to fight to Germany and Austria. Russia could have told Serbia to stop all of this nonsense and give in to Austria's demands, and not started sending thousands of troops to the border, but Slavic pride got in the way and Serbia refused, and Russia couldn't be convinced to knock it off. Russia could have not amassed troops the way that they did, and tensions would have likely cooled down, but Russia actually wanted a war with Germany. They just didn't count on the whole world going up in flames when it kicked off. Many theorists believe that Russia simply didn't care that so many would be killed in the resulting war, because Russia had globalist goals, and they didn't care how many peasants it killed. Germany didn't want to fight, but they needed a little insurance policy to make sure that Russia might shoot themselves in the foot if they started getting giggy with it. The only trouble with Russia's plan was that there was this little creep called Lenin that Germany was smuggling into Russia to start trouble there, you know, just in case. If Tsarist Russia had concentrated on stomping out communism rather than trying to be the big dog in world dominance, there would have never been a Soviet Union, and The Great War would have likely only been the Austo-Serbian War instead. So... Russia caused World War One, and Imperial Germany gave birth to the Soviet Union.