As someone who grew up in the Netherlands I really enjoy these lectures about the Great War. Because of our neutrality, there is little to no interest in this war in my country, which is a shame, because I find it much more interesting than World War II. The family ties between the King George of England, the Tsar Nicholas of Russia, Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany and the Queen Marie of Romania for instance... Intriguing politics leading up to the escalation in 1914 are so much more interesting than what happened in the 1930s.
and then Wilhelm II was related to King Albert I of Belgium and to the Bulgarian Czar, Ferdinand I. And then Ferdinand I invaded Romania, whose Czar was also named Ferdinand I and also a cousin to Bulgaria's Ferdinand I. It's so damn confusing as to how they're all related - by blood or by marriage, which seems to end up being by blood at some point. I'm convinced Queen Victoria should have spanked the lot when she had the chance.
If you think about it, WW1 and WW2 should really be considered The World War. 1914-1945 with a twenty year cease fire. Not my original idea, just something that I heard in a lecture like this.
Great exposition to the topic, thank you Gresham College and Prof Stevenson. I learned a lot. I want to point out, however, that casually claiming that Germany "started the war" as he does, is highly reductive. There is truth to it: certain foreign policy decisions (its naval build up, and escalation of the Agadir crisis, come to mind) did contribute to an increase in international tension. However the same can be said for: Italy (for attacking Libya unprovoked, which dramatically destabilized the Balkans), Serbia (for failing to conduct a serious independent investigation of the June 28th assassination), Austria (for presenting Serbia with an ultimatum that, if accepted, would have violated its sovereignty), Russia (for defending Serbia unconditionally and being the first country to order a general military mobilization, which ended the possibility of a localized conflict), and France (for backing Russia unconditionally, without attempting to resolve the crisis or understand Austria's reasonable need to control terrorism) Of course, we could also look outside the national framework for an explanation of the war. The conflict could equally well be explained by these socio-cultural factors: The alliance system (which made such escalation natural, and indeed France/Russia had planned on escalating a Balkan war, and so read the events of summer 1914 through that lens) The zero-sum nature of imperialism, The religious devotion to nationalism (especially Serbian irredentism, which motivated Princip to assassinate the archduke) The opacity of foreign policy decision-making (monarchs, foreign ministers, diplomats, and prime ministers all competed for authority and it was difficult for other countries to interpret which source was legitimate), and The dominance of men in each country's foreign policy-making machinery, and the predominant conception of masculinity at the time Blaming Germany might fill some emotional need (which is understandable, given WWII), but it distracts us from the deeper structural causes of the war. We would do well to reflect on the latter, because none of them has entirely disappeared. These ideas mostly came from Sleepwalkers by Christoper Clark, which I highly recommend. Here's a talk he gave about the causes of the war (the book is much better than the talk, tbh): th-cam.com/video/6snYQFcyiyg/w-d-xo.html
+Patrick Donworth What you say hold much truth, however I would argue that most if not all the points you bring are wrong in being the reason for the start of the war... First: the Balkans had been a mess in more than 15 years at that point, Italy' actions might not have helped, but in the end, they are hardly to blame. Serbia and Austria had it out for each other, but where in no way planing a war that would include France or Britain. Russia seams to have a greater responsibility for starting the war, both in the way they worked political and the fact that they had a greater army ready, than anyone thought... But there are a few were important points not to be forgot, one Russia was actually ready to let the Austrians occupied Beograd so that the truth could be found, but also that even if they had gone in, they would have been the aggressor, something that the Russians were very aware of, and that is important, because the alliance with France only covered a defensive war... So if Russia had gone in, France would not take part. The key part so far seams to have been two different things, one the German mobilization, and two German miscommunications to Austria. When that started there were no longer any way back from war... Because of German plans that accepted that a new war would be on two fronts, and the general staff of Germany had not made plans for a war on other assumtions... The second thing was that the german Keiser made a communication that can be understood in different ways... This was seen as a green light by the Austrians. It is these two reasons that has made historians in general has accepted that German had a greater responsibility for the war than others...
I've read a number of these texts and it seems you can make a case for many things, many people, numerous crises and the political gamesmanship played by many. However, all the players are dead. There are some missing archives. Were they purposely destroyed to cover something? Nobody knows. So, you can blame Edward Grey for being the master of providing mixed messages and never being straight with foreign ambassadors. Or Bethmann for not being more forceful with Berchtold or putting up with endless delays with Austria's response. Maybe Bethmann or Wilhelm should have told Berchtold something to the effect of, we're tired of waiting for you to respond quickly that we said needed to happen. You're now on your own. What about France feeling that if Russia got too big then at some future point there would be no way Russia would go to war if France wanted to recover Alsace and Lorraine? Therefore it would be better for France to go to war now.
No mention of the allied blockade. Starvation at home was the primary reason for the defeat. It was kept up after the armistice making acceptance of the treaty of Versailles inevitable. Not a "stab in the back", but a kick in the stomach.
The impression I gathered from the speaker is that the surrender was predicated on military losses and the breakdown of logistical support. I doubt very much that the starvation of citizens would have prompted peace, if the war was still winnable.
according to creveld not at all. So I couldn't help you. Creveld says that problems were caused by the dire circumstances of a multi front war, blockades and sheer lack, not by contempt for any organisation. first time I hear it here, normally the opposite argument is given in critique.
RonJohn63 They warn't... During both wars, they were cut of from essensial supplies from the rest of the world... First world war, food and metal, and in bringing what they had to the front... Bringing over the battlefield, after 1 mio shells have been used... that is hell
bandholm They weren't cut off from essential supplies at the beginning of Barbarossa (5 months before the US entered the war), and still they sucked at logistics.
RonJohn63 But did they? The most forward units (the most difficult units to equip) always had supplies, right up till just before Moscow... My point is, they had bad logistic for a protracted campain, but Russia was never meant to be a long campain
RonJohn63 You make a number of basic errors in your post: First, you don't give them credit for their intellect... Of course they knew of Napoleon, Hitler was obsessed with the man. And that was in part why the german attack plan ended up like it did. Second, you look at it with the knowledge that the army of USSR have made some hugh changes in structure, tactics and equipment, as well as the lederships ruthlessness towards the soldiers, Thirdly the distance was immense! But they ended up at the gates of Moscow, had a few tactical decisions been taken, Moscov might have fallen... Would that have ended the war? No I don't think so, but a lot of guys did back then... We will never trully know what might have happende. You fail to recognize that Germany had beaten Russia in WW1, that the USSR are kick out of Polan in the 1920's, that the USSR de facto lost the winter war with Finland... And that Germany in six weeks had conquered France (at the time seen as the greatest military might in Europe). American military analysts thought that the USSR would fall within 3 months of the German invation! It was logistices that lost Germany the war, but at the time, in the spirit of what had happen in the privius years... German planers thought that the USSR were to frail to offer much resistance... It was a gamble and luck was with the free world!
Would the Allies have accepted a truce or treaty from Germany after they gained the Russian lands? Germany had gained a lot of land from Russia, and it was a stalemate in the east for years earlier
I found this presentation extremely engaging however the presenter asserted as fact several assumptions. Tactically the Germans consistently on the defensive exercised a technological advantage over the allies. The bulk of their tactical artillery 75 and 105 millimetre guns were howitzers capable of high trajectory recoil less fire ideal for reverse slope fire. This completely marginalised the French 75 or British 13/18 pounder whose angle of fire was 13 degrees or so useless when engaging an enemy on higher ground. The Germans initially had substantially superior quantities of heavy and super heavy modern artillery. The British and French relying on historic stocks of guns lacking and recoil suppression. In all aspects the Germans lead the technological arms and tactical race as witnessed by their development of grenades, gas, storm troopers, minenwerfers these were all German developments subsequently adopted by the allies. The tank failed in its role as a deadlock breaking weapon when one considers Cambrian where they achieved their greatest success and yet 2 weeks later the Germans not only regained their front line trenches but occupied the jumping off position of the British. Strategically the presenter in my opinion glosses over 1917 where he emphasises Haig's belief that he could win the war but fails to recognise the massive truism that both Russian and France were out fought and in revolution or Mutiny where the Germans were still full of fight. One must assess their the Germans capacity to maintain the struggle on 2 fronts whilst 'all the time being shackled to a corpse'. I would draw readers attention to John Mozier's book 'Myths of the Great War' an extremely objective and original essay on the struggle and Peter Barton's excellent 3 part BBC documentary on German tactical development on the western front. I by no means have the monopoly on being right but am passionate about the period. Thank you for reading my imaginings.
It would be so refreshing to hear a British War Historian mention the Australians or Canadians but he only goes as far as mentioning “Dominion Forces”. I tuned out immediately.
Germany started the war? It was hardly the sole responsibility of one nation. A series of miscalculations throughout the first decade of the twentieth century led to the war. Germany probably made the biggest mistake with its outdated war plans, but it was not solely responsible. Austria-Hungry could have simply accepted the Serbian response to its ultimatum. Even the Kaiser thought that war had been averted, and possibly German could have helped negotiate the terms.
RonJohn63 oh really? how about 37:02? Where he; perhaps unintentionally claimed explicitly the opposite. Mind you, following a very tainted opinion on "unrestricted" naval warfare and sinking of the lusitania. let Buddy disagree. there is no credible argument that germany started the war. neither by first ground invasion(predated by russia into prussia and france in alsace) nor by the argument of being a particular war crazed nation. the argument that austria would have started it is usually disgarded as unimportant because unlike germany, austria stopped to be a threat in competition for dominance. Germany was blamed for political reasons more then for real ones others could not also be blamed of. Wilhelm II was playing a huge role in escalating though.
+Rob Bowes Everyone had AND HAS plans to invade neighboring countries, its called having a competent military, they plan in advance in case the need arises. What are you? A gringo? You do know that the US has plans to invade Canada right?
It is the Salonica front and the incredible fast-paced movement of the Serbian troops (followed by the French and by the British who disappointingly refused to engage the campaign until 9 days after the Serbian troops had begun the counter-offensive ) that changed the allies luck permanently for the better. For some reason the lecturer downplays it and says that "the Balkans and the Western front...those two situations cracked simultaneously". Incorrect. The success and heroism of the Salonica front was the impetus that allowed for what followed at the Western front...
Great exposition. And yew, Germany started the war. And the German atrocities of the First World War were a foretaste of what would happen in the next.
+Steven Torrey Germany fought a war against 3 countries running colonies: UK, France, Russia. Guess all these countries ruled their colonies such that all colonized people were happy. WW1 was the first step to end colonialism. Thats why the Irish, Indians and Chinese like Germany.
+Frank Fahrenheit.....so WW1 was a fight against colonization?? a righteous German struggle??? hahahaha it's funny some Germans still believe that. can't blame them though. germanys 20th centrury was devastating to its ownnself. there decisions were very reckless to say the least
Germany was fighting to expand it,s own empire in east Africa,and in the Congo,so why is it all of a sudden against colonisation when it was set in it,s own ways of doing the same thing,it had also triggered the first arm,s race with its Dreadnoughts battle ships,and it was not alone,Austria,Hungary,check you bloody remarks with your history,oh and what war followed is why the most of the planet cant stand Germany today,ie Jew,s Gypsies,and other people of other persuasions
Germany fough Russia, France, Britain, India, Australia, Canada, the US, half a million civilians starved to death, it produced oil from coal, had to fight on two fronts and not one round was fired on its territory... now that's what I call losing!
as an American I say God bless Woodrow Wilson for limiting our casualties while maximizing our gains. America avoided paying heavy price. in both wars by the way. i jusy hope our current government remembers what could possibly happen when dealing with current Middle East
As someone who grew up in the Netherlands I really enjoy these lectures about the Great War. Because of our neutrality, there is little to no interest in this war in my country, which is a shame, because I find it much more interesting than World War II. The family ties between the King George of England, the Tsar Nicholas of Russia, Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany and the Queen Marie of Romania for instance... Intriguing politics leading up to the escalation in 1914 are so much more interesting than what happened in the 1930s.
***** You mean King George of the United Kingdom
and then Wilhelm II was related to King Albert I of Belgium and to the Bulgarian Czar, Ferdinand I. And then Ferdinand I invaded Romania, whose Czar was also named Ferdinand I and also a cousin to Bulgaria's Ferdinand I. It's so damn confusing as to how they're all related - by blood or by marriage, which seems to end up being by blood at some point.
I'm convinced Queen Victoria should have spanked the lot when she had the chance.
If you think about it, WW1 and WW2 should really be considered The World War. 1914-1945 with a twenty year cease fire. Not my original idea, just something that I heard in a lecture like this.
David Sabillon yeah... the European civil war - parts 1&2 with a 20 yr break in between to reload for the final round
Outstanding lecture brilliantly delivered, pity it's only an hr ..
David Stevens is one of the best WWI historians.
He has a good one at National World War I Museum and...
Great exposition to the topic, thank you Gresham College and Prof Stevenson. I learned a lot.
I want to point out, however, that casually claiming that Germany "started the war" as he does, is highly reductive. There is truth to it: certain foreign policy decisions (its naval build up, and escalation of the Agadir crisis, come to mind) did contribute to an increase in international tension.
However the same can be said for:
Italy (for attacking Libya unprovoked, which dramatically destabilized the Balkans),
Serbia (for failing to conduct a serious independent investigation of the June 28th assassination),
Austria (for presenting Serbia with an ultimatum that, if accepted, would have violated its sovereignty),
Russia (for defending Serbia unconditionally and being the first country to order a general military mobilization, which ended the possibility of a localized conflict), and
France (for backing Russia unconditionally, without attempting to resolve the crisis or understand Austria's reasonable need to control terrorism)
Of course, we could also look outside the national framework for an explanation of the war. The conflict could equally well be explained by these socio-cultural factors:
The alliance system (which made such escalation natural, and indeed France/Russia had planned on escalating a Balkan war, and so read the events of summer 1914 through that lens)
The zero-sum nature of imperialism,
The religious devotion to nationalism (especially Serbian irredentism, which motivated Princip to assassinate the archduke)
The opacity of foreign policy decision-making (monarchs, foreign ministers, diplomats, and prime ministers all competed for authority and it was difficult for other countries to interpret which source was legitimate), and
The dominance of men in each country's foreign policy-making machinery, and the predominant conception of masculinity at the time
Blaming Germany might fill some emotional need (which is understandable, given WWII), but it distracts us from the deeper structural causes of the war. We would do well to reflect on the latter, because none of them has entirely disappeared.
These ideas mostly came from Sleepwalkers by Christoper Clark, which I highly recommend. Here's a talk he gave about the causes of the war (the book is much better than the talk, tbh): th-cam.com/video/6snYQFcyiyg/w-d-xo.html
+Patrick Donworth What you say hold much truth, however I would argue that most if not all the points you bring are wrong in being the reason for the start of the war...
First: the Balkans had been a mess in more than 15 years at that point, Italy' actions might not have helped, but in the end, they are hardly to blame.
Serbia and Austria had it out for each other, but where in no way planing a war that would include France or Britain.
Russia seams to have a greater responsibility for starting the war, both in the way they worked political and the fact that they had a greater army ready, than anyone thought... But there are a few were important points not to be forgot, one Russia was actually ready to let the Austrians occupied Beograd so that the truth could be found, but also that even if they had gone in, they would have been the aggressor, something that the Russians were very aware of, and that is important, because the alliance with France only covered a defensive war... So if Russia had gone in, France would not take part.
The key part so far seams to have been two different things, one the German mobilization, and two German miscommunications to Austria. When that started there were no longer any way back from war... Because of German plans that accepted that a new war would be on two fronts, and the general staff of Germany had not made plans for a war on other assumtions... The second thing was that the german Keiser made a communication that can be understood in different ways... This was seen as a green light by the Austrians.
It is these two reasons that has made historians in general has accepted that German had a greater responsibility for the war than others...
I've read a number of these texts and it seems you can make a case for many things, many people, numerous crises and the political gamesmanship played by many. However, all the players are dead. There are some missing archives. Were they purposely destroyed to cover something? Nobody knows. So, you can blame Edward Grey for being the master of providing mixed messages and never being straight with foreign ambassadors. Or Bethmann for not being more forceful with Berchtold or putting up with endless delays with Austria's response. Maybe Bethmann or Wilhelm should have told Berchtold something to the effect of, we're tired of waiting for you to respond quickly that we said needed to happen. You're now on your own. What about France feeling that if Russia got too big then at some future point there would be no way Russia would go to war if France wanted to recover Alsace and Lorraine? Therefore it would be better for France to go to war now.
No mention of the allied blockade. Starvation at home was the primary reason for the defeat. It was kept up after the armistice making acceptance of the treaty of Versailles inevitable. Not a "stab in the back", but a kick in the stomach.
William Moore He does talk about that @ 34:00.
The impression I gathered from the speaker is that the surrender was predicated on military losses and the breakdown of logistical support. I doubt very much that the starvation of citizens would have prompted peace, if the war was still winnable.
Anyone know which British Somme documentary he reffers to?
Why -- in both wars -- was the German Army so great at tactical fighting, but so *bad* at logistics? Prussian disdain for stuff seen as clerical work?
according to creveld not at all. So I couldn't help you.
Creveld says that problems were caused by the dire circumstances of a multi front war, blockades and sheer lack, not by contempt for any organisation.
first time I hear it here, normally the opposite argument is given in critique.
RonJohn63 They warn't...
During both wars, they were cut of from essensial supplies from the rest of the world... First world war, food and metal, and in bringing what they had to the front... Bringing over the battlefield, after 1 mio shells have been used... that is hell
bandholm They weren't cut off from essential supplies at the beginning of Barbarossa (5 months before the US entered the war), and still they sucked at logistics.
RonJohn63 But did they?
The most forward units (the most difficult units to equip) always had supplies, right up till just before Moscow... My point is, they had bad logistic for a protracted campain, but Russia was never meant to be a long campain
RonJohn63 You make a number of basic errors in your post:
First, you don't give them credit for their intellect... Of course they knew of Napoleon, Hitler was obsessed with the man. And that was in part why the german attack plan ended up like it did.
Second, you look at it with the knowledge that the army of USSR have made some hugh changes in structure, tactics and equipment, as well as the lederships ruthlessness towards the soldiers,
Thirdly the distance was immense! But they ended up at the gates of Moscow, had a few tactical decisions been taken, Moscov might have fallen... Would that have ended the war? No I don't think so, but a lot of guys did back then... We will never trully know what might have happende.
You fail to recognize that Germany had beaten Russia in WW1, that the USSR are kick out of Polan in the 1920's, that the USSR de facto lost the winter war with Finland... And that Germany in six weeks had conquered France (at the time seen as the greatest military might in Europe).
American military analysts thought that the USSR would fall within 3 months of the German invation!
It was logistices that lost Germany the war, but at the time, in the spirit of what had happen in the privius years... German planers thought that the USSR were to frail to offer much resistance... It was a gamble and luck was with the free world!
Would the Allies have accepted a truce or treaty from Germany after they gained the Russian lands? Germany had gained a lot of land from Russia, and it was a stalemate in the east for years earlier
Great overview. Thanks for the upload.
I found this presentation extremely engaging however the presenter asserted as fact several assumptions. Tactically the Germans consistently on the defensive exercised a technological advantage over the allies. The bulk of their tactical artillery 75 and 105 millimetre guns were howitzers capable of high trajectory recoil less fire ideal for reverse slope fire. This completely marginalised the French 75 or British 13/18 pounder whose angle of fire was 13 degrees or so useless when engaging an enemy on higher ground. The Germans initially had substantially superior quantities of heavy and super heavy modern artillery. The British and French relying on historic stocks of guns lacking and recoil suppression. In all aspects the Germans lead the technological arms and tactical race as witnessed by their development of grenades, gas, storm troopers, minenwerfers these were all German developments subsequently adopted by the allies. The tank failed in its role as a deadlock breaking weapon when one considers Cambrian where they achieved their greatest success and yet 2 weeks later the Germans not only regained their front line trenches but occupied the jumping off position of the British.
Strategically the presenter in my opinion glosses over 1917 where he emphasises Haig's belief that he could win the war but fails to recognise the massive truism that both Russian and France were out fought and in revolution or Mutiny where the Germans were still full of fight. One must assess their the Germans capacity to maintain the struggle on 2 fronts whilst 'all the time being shackled to a corpse'. I would draw readers attention to John Mozier's book 'Myths of the Great War' an extremely objective and original essay on the struggle and Peter Barton's excellent 3 part BBC documentary on German tactical development on the western front.
I by no means have the monopoly on being right but am passionate about the period. Thank you for reading my imaginings.
That was awesome. Thank you very much!
It would be so refreshing to hear a British War Historian mention the Australians or Canadians but he only goes as far as mentioning “Dominion Forces”. I tuned out immediately.
canada is a joke country with a retarded fop for prime minister, nobody takes it seriously why bother mentioning it ?
@@alhiddell6810 That's nice to hear, next time don't bother calling.
Germany started the war? It was hardly the sole responsibility of one nation. A series of miscalculations throughout the first decade of the twentieth century led to the war. Germany probably made the biggest mistake with its outdated war plans, but it was not solely responsible. Austria-Hungry could have simply accepted the Serbian response to its ultimatum. Even the Kaiser thought that war had been averted, and possibly German could have helped negotiate the terms.
Funny how the Kaiser had a detailed plan to invade France handy.
The Kaiser was Jealous of his English cousins vain arrogant and stupid. Millions died for nothing
Professor Stevenson *explicitly* stated that "Germany started the war" is outdated thinking.
RonJohn63
oh really? how about 37:02? Where he; perhaps unintentionally claimed explicitly the opposite. Mind you, following a very tainted opinion on "unrestricted" naval warfare and sinking of the lusitania. let Buddy disagree.
there is no credible argument that germany started the war. neither by first ground invasion(predated by russia into prussia and france in alsace) nor by the argument of being a particular war crazed nation. the argument that austria would have started it is usually disgarded as unimportant because unlike germany, austria stopped to be a threat in competition for dominance.
Germany was blamed for political reasons more then for real ones others could not also be blamed of.
Wilhelm II was playing a huge role in escalating though.
+Rob Bowes Everyone had AND HAS plans to invade neighboring countries, its called having a competent military, they plan in advance in case the need arises.
What are you? A gringo? You do know that the US has plans to invade Canada right?
It is the Salonica front and the incredible fast-paced movement of the Serbian troops (followed by the French and by the British who disappointingly refused to engage the campaign until 9 days after the Serbian troops had begun the counter-offensive ) that changed the allies luck permanently for the better. For some reason the lecturer downplays it and says that "the Balkans and the Western front...those two situations cracked simultaneously". Incorrect. The success and heroism of the Salonica front was the impetus that allowed for what followed at the Western front...
Great exposition. And yew, Germany started the war. And the German atrocities of the First World War were a foretaste of what would happen in the next.
+Steven Torrey Germany fought a war against 3 countries running colonies: UK, France, Russia. Guess all these countries ruled their colonies such that all colonized people were happy. WW1 was the first step to end colonialism. Thats why the Irish, Indians and Chinese like Germany.
+Frank Fahrenheit.....so WW1 was a fight against colonization?? a righteous German struggle??? hahahaha it's funny some Germans still believe that. can't blame them though. germanys 20th centrury was devastating to its ownnself. there decisions were very reckless to say the least
Germany was fighting to expand it,s own empire in east Africa,and in the Congo,so why is it all of a sudden against colonisation when it was set in it,s own ways of doing the same thing,it had also triggered the first arm,s race with its Dreadnoughts battle ships,and it was not alone,Austria,Hungary,check you bloody remarks with your history,oh and what war followed is why the most of the planet cant stand Germany today,ie Jew,s Gypsies,and other people of other persuasions
er sumthin for your home country (uk?) It was for sure a fight FOR colonialism.
***** ex german colonies: not present in the news. Fomer british colonies: corruption everywhere. Germany 1 UK 0
But this takes a long time - Seems to be the underlying theme of the talk.
Germany fough Russia, France, Britain, India, Australia, Canada, the US, half a million civilians starved to death, it produced oil from coal, had to fight on two fronts and not one round was fired on its territory... now that's what I call losing!
as an American I say God bless Woodrow Wilson for limiting our casualties while maximizing our gains. America avoided paying heavy price. in both wars by the way. i jusy hope our current government remembers what could possibly happen when dealing with current Middle East
ugly nationalism like this is easy when other people do the actual fighting and dying er sumthin
not war
I hope that he speaks better than he writes, his prose is pretty terminal.
Fanciful maps? Analysis by physiognomy? Transfers to Russia? Oh dear.....
Cut my losses when he got the Battle of Verdun wrong.