I hope you enjoy this semi-redo of my old war aims video on WW1. The earlier version is well over a year old and looking a bit tired in my opinion. This should hopefully go more in depth on areas I have not covered previously. I have still ended up feeling like I have only really scratched the service of Brest-Litovsk and the settlement in the Middle East. So they shall need their own videos eventually I think. Nonetheless, thank you for watching. Edit: I’ve seen someone suggest the topic of Ukraine in this video is too political. To be clear, the information presented here is mainly analysis from Sean McMeekin, Alexander Watson and Dominic Lieven. The latter is probably the foremost English language historian on early 20th Russian diplomacy currently. His analysis was written before 2014 and was not influenced by the current crisis. I have no real interest in dealing with current affairs on this channel (and no one is here to hear me talk about them) but I also do not think it would be right to ignore the importance of Ukraine to Russia and Germany in WW1, or how the Russians justified their invasion of Galicia.
The thought of AH gaining Silesia and Bavaria just seems odd. It just feels strange that in this scenario they could’ve net gained land even though they would have lost.
Silesia I don't know but Bavaria likely indignantly would have rejected this merger. When I think of what feasibly might have changed the war's course: Austria-Hungary ceding some border land inhabited by Italian speakers to Italy in exchange for neutrality (while promising Nice, Savoy, Corsica, and Tunisia) and compromising with Hungary in 1867 without giving *all of Transylvania* to Hungary so as to aim Romanian ambition toward Russian Bessarabia instead of a Magyarized Transylvania might have helped improve Central Powers access to food (which Romania exported and Italy could have imported and re-exported). A Greater Bulgaria and Albania at Serbia's expense would have neutralized Serbia and improved Mediterranean access. These moves would have put the Central Powers on a firmer foundation, enabled maximization of Russian defeat, and made provocation of American entry less likely; they would have improved Central Powers endurance in a long attritional war.
Austria- Hungary should cooperate with Germany much more or not start the war at all. 1) invite some German generals to reform and train Austro- Hungarian army (just like Turkey did). IRL They performed best under German leadership. 2) listen to Von Moltke about compromise with Italy. 3) consult with Germany about offensive actions.
@@Brian----- Perhaps, but I do not see any way the Hungarians would have voluntarily ceded any land to the Romanians. Remember that the Hungarians had a lot of autonomy thanks to the Ausgleich, and any attempt to force them to cede land to Romania would have caused the collapse of the fragile Austro-Hungarian union.
The US entry is a really interesting moment, the first time that a non European/Mediterranean state held significant sway over European politics, it must have been a bizarre moment where a new world state dictated terms in the old world
one could argue this really began with the spanish american war, but that was on a much smaller scale and less impactful than this obviously. however since Teddy i think you could track a slowly growing American presence in overseas (and due to the nature of that imperial era, European) politics leading to 1917, a moment which outwardly marked a transition of global hegemony from one Anglo nation to another, ultimately culminating in the 1921 Washington Naval Conference (which solidified the USA’s navy as an equal to the UK’s). Definitely a shock to the well established powers-that be, though most of them were probably more concerned about simply surviving rather than reflecting on the new policies of the United States at the time.
@@dropandy1453 I don’t really think you could classify the US as an Anglo nation, culturally it’s very different from the UK, and from cultural influences and heritage it’s extremely different especially in economics and foreign policy. While the US is a predominantly English speaking nation it is and was distinct from British English, so I would only say Anglo in the broader linguistic sense.
@@matthewdavid6134if you’re referring to European migration to America, that’s vastly overstated Most White Americans are plurality or majority British by descent, but nobody puts down English as a ethnicity in the census because it’s considered boring, even in the Upper South where almost all White Americans are of entirely scots Irish and English stock, people put down American as their ethnicity to seem more interesting Lots of people will have a single ancestor from Sweden or Poland and make it their whole identity, completely ignoring the colonial side of their ancestry
I've been thinking about this a lot studying the war recently. An American army fighting in Europe- not a British colonial force but the military of an independent American great power- must have been such a bizarre new thing. It's like when Jack Donaghy on _30 Rock_ said "how can a company from Philadelphia own a company from New York!?"
French claims to Syria (including Lebanon) were not just romantic bs. The French for centuries saw themselves as the protectors of Middle Eastern Christians, especially the Maronite Catholics, and the French for a long time had an advantageous position due to the Franco-Ottoman alliance. In 1860 they intervened in a civil war between the Maronites and Druze. The French also built railways in Syria/Lebanon and pursued other business opportunities - the classic colonial playbook.
French colonial efforts were often focused along religious lines, not just in the Middle East, but in Indochina and Algeria as well, with a heavy emphasis on missionary conversions of the natives to Roman Catholicism. It is interesting that France, the Republican power for most of its post-1815 history, was a stronger champion of Christianity in its foreign policy than Great Britain, with its conservative motto of “God, King, and Country.” The British instead felt no remorse for throwing Christians under the bus in order to preserve the balance of power, nor did they heavily promote missionary activity in their colonies.
@@seanlander9321 the only thing you did was to wait REAL men do the work against the germans while you bri*ish girls were too afraid to even get off your tiny disgusting useless foggy island.
@@wolliveryoutube That seems contradictory though, didn't France invade the papacy, dismantled the church in both France and their conquered territories, and stripped away most power away from the clergy? But at the same time they claimed to care about Christians. Was it just against the church then?
I'm really grateful you included Austria-Hungary in this. All eight of my immigrant ancestors came to the United States from what were then known as "Austrian Galicia" and "Upper Hungary" in the years immediately preceding or following WWI. The decline and collapse of the Habsburg Empire was one of the most seminal events in European history and had far-reaching global consequences, but it's a story that almost never gets told in English-language historical discussions about the early 20th century.
Francesco Nitti, Prime Minister of Italy, September 1924: "No country was perished more viciously in Trianon than Hungary. But this country is dwelled by spiritually strong people, who won't be resigned to the demolition of their country. Hungary's dismembering is so dishonourable that no one takes responsibility for it. Everybody acts like they don't know about it, everybody is in coy silence. The reference to the right of nations' self-determination is only an untrue formula... they misused their victory in the most vicious way... There's no French, English or Italian who would accept the conditions forced to Hungary for their own nation..." Herbert Henry Asquith, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for 8 years, 1925: "This treaty is no work of statesmen, but the result of severe and fatal deceptions." Vladimir Iljic Lenin: "The treaty was forced down their throat, but this is a usurious treaty, the treaty of murderers and butchers... unprecedented, predacious treaty... this is no treaty, these are conditions that scampsmen dictate with knives in their hands to unprotected victims." Lloyd George, Prime Minister of the U.K., in his speech on the 7th of October, 1929: "The whole documentation that we received from our allies at the peace talk, was deceitfuland untrue. We came to a decision on false principles" Arthur Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of the U.K.: "The result of the Treaty of Trianon in Europe is not peace, but the fear of another war."
Wars are more complicated: sometimes you find defeated victors and victorious loosers. So here: Germany achieved its main goal, which means the destruction of the Triple Entente. Russia sank in chaos, France was severely weakened, GB no longer ruled the waves alone. Instead it became financial deeply dependent on the USA. German industry stayed intact. The payment of most of the reparations to the Allies was successfully sabotaged. Newly founded Eastern European States - once ruled by Austria and Russia - very soon became satellites of the German economy. Germany had not to fear a new encirclement by a New Triple Entente.
The cold war probably plays a part in that I suspect. But I don't know anything about Germany post ww2 beyond the fact it was dissected into several parts.
Another banger vid. Too many histories of the First World War gloss over the fact that so many of the great powers involved in the war really fought themselves to exhaustion over the course of it. Austria-Hungary and Russia both imploded, while Germany strained herself so hard that she was wracked with upheaval for years afterwards. In France's and Italy's cases, it's really a miracle that they didn't collapse in some way by the end of the conflict. Side note, another war aim of AH was the creation of a large Albania under their domination. Both as a useful counterbalance to the small slavic states around it, but also to prevent Italy from strategically bottling Austria up in the Adriatic
I'd say that while Russia imploded, Austria-Hungary more or less just evaporated away under the pressure of economic collapse, starvation and Entante diplomatic intransigence.
Italy didn't straight up collapse but keep in mind that WW1 was the catalyst of the massive strikes of the "Biennio Rosso" (Caused by the economy being in tatters after mobilising everyone including 18 years olds and the difficulty of reconverting to peace time industry as well as the difficulty in handling the massive numbers of working age veterans no longer fit for work due to injuries) which likewise resulted in reactionary forces consolidating around the movement of the fasces (Soon to be renamed with its better known name, the National Fascist Party) and then we all know how it went. So while it didn't straight up collapse like Tzarist Russia or Austria-Hungary, it was definitely pushed to the brink and faced heavy consequences for its war effort.
WW1 is so crazy for this. Europe fought itself to utter exhaustion (France, Britain, Germany, Italy) or to the collapse of their state all together (Russia, AH, the ottomans) all over... pedestrian territorial and colonial ambitions? Continental security concerns? WW1 was a huge shift in european society because afterwards there wasn't a single war aim that could justify the ruin it caused.
I'm sharing a comment made by @matthiasm4299 for it says it all "French claims to Syria (including Lebanon) were not just romantic bs. The French for centuries saw themselves as the protectors of Middle Eastern Christians, especially the Maronite Catholics, and the French for a long time had an advantageous position due to the Franco-Ottoman alliance. In 1860 they intervened in a civil war between the Maronites and Druze. The French also built railways in Syria/Lebanon and pursued other business opportunities - the classic colonial playbook."
@@fireandblood8142 I mean I know they considered themselves the protectors of Christians in the Middle East, however going back all the way to the crusades seems like a stretch, at least in my opinion, there’s a big gap between the crusades and the 1800s.
@@garrettallen7427 The thing is that this was only one justification for their claims among all the others that I gave you just above, which are much more serious than, I grant you, romantic feelings linked to the crusades. Lebanon had in fact been a French quasi-protectorate since 1860, so Britain could not simply claim it or give it to an Arab kingdom without encroaching on already established French influence.
This video is incredibly detailed and well-researched. It's unbelievably refreshing to hear someone talk about this topic intelligently instead of parroting generic modern talking points without any critical analysis.
I always enjoy your videos. I appreciate that unlike many "history" youtubers, you stay within your area of expertise in which it is clear you have done substantial reading. Too many youtubers fall into the trap of becoming generalists, producing shallow scripts often taken straight out of wikipedia, or at best, one or two general histories.
@@stevemcgroob4446 Wow, I'm amazed anyone remembers! I had to take them down due to the copyright rules changing. I have thought about making more video content since then, but again horror stories about content ID from creators I follow has always put me off.
@BlameThande I see, I've heard the same stories myself. TH-cam has changed a lot since then, and I don't blame anyone for not wanting to deal with that. I've been a longtime fan of your other web project, so that's how I remember. Since you're still using TH-cam, there are a couple of other history focused channels I recommend for binging. Odd Compass focuses on Indian history. Strategy Stuff studies political movements and war planning. And Ancient Americas covers a lot of pre-Columbian archeology and history.
I’m a great fan of your channel and the topics of your videos! So much to unfold about history’s conflicts, we often just focus on the final results of conflicts.
Thank you for always posting your sources at the end of your videos. In addition to emphasizing the academic rigor of your preparation, they provide a great invitation for further study to us, the viewers.
Excellent video as always. You continue to be one of the best TH-cam history channels, and I find the way the videos are presented to be aesthetically very pleasing, well worth the remake of this topic. Are you planning on doing a follow-up video covering the aims of the minor powers like Italy, Serbia, Greece and Romania?
Thank you. I have an earlier video on the Balkans, Italy and the Ottomans. If I'm being perfectly honest, it probably the worst still up on the channel, and I in some ways regret making it. I don't have a particularly great grasp of nineteenth/ early twentieth century Balkan history and I think that video showed it. But yes, with a lot more research there will probably be a remake in the future.
I’ve wondered what would’ve happened what would’ve happened if in the Franco-Prussian war, Germany didn’t annex Alsaus Loraine. Germany didn’t annex Austro Hungarian lands sone years before and that worked out well for them. Maybe instead a colony of roughly equal value could’ve been a better option. Yeah, France would still lose land, but it would’ve been an easier pill to swallow and may very well have at the very least not have created such a hostile attitude towards Berlin, allowing Germany to somewhat secure their western border.
I think given that scenario France would have remained largely neutral, but it wouldn't necessarily mean Germany just marches east. Russian industrialisation was part bankrolled by France, who wanted a Germany threatened on her flank. Without french finance, Russias rapid industrialisation may not have threatened Berlin as much as it did. That's not even to mention how the breakdown of the Russo-German pact may not have happened if France wasn't presenting itself as an eager partner, looking to tear Germany's alliance apart. We may well have had an Austria isolated diplomatically and forced to accept a compromise in 1914. Who knows how long the status quo could have lasted.
This is unpredictable... There would be less anti- german sentiment obviously, but France itself would be more powerful saving main army supply depots. And Germany taking colonies in Africa could rise a competition between Germany and UK after Berlin Congress. So Franco- British alliance is still possible and it would be even more dangerous for Germany than IRL. Also it doesn't affect relations with Austria- Hungary, there won't be an isolation, as German generals were cautious about Russia and belived that war right now ( in 1914) is much better than giving Russia a chance to build up their industry and do rearmament.
France could not stomach not being the major land power in europe. They would always seek to check germany in any way possible so if anything the prussians failure was in not breaking france to the point it it could no longer be a major threat again especially with such an overwhelming victory in the franco prussian war
Reading some of the sources not just from French, but also from British politicians, the creation of the German Empire itself was considered a major upheaval that threatened the balance of power in Europe to any of its neighbors. Anti-German propaganda in France may have lost one argument, but France still wouldn't have trusted such a big power popping up right next door. Not to mention that even in this scenario, Bismarck's policy of keeping France diplomatically isolated after the war to avoid retaliation likely still would have happened. All in all, it just shows how unique the post-WW2 European order and economical integration was in how it dissuaded any further conflicts.
@@UnholyWrath3277I agree, real balance between the great landpowers could have never prevented war. Either France, Germany or Russia would have had to dominate the continent
It just so happens that you've released this while I'm drawing a portrait of William Ormsby-Gore, a British MP and officer in the war who not only opposed British territorial spoils but actively criticized the entire concept of the British Empire. Needless to say he was no friend of Mark Sykes. But at the same time, for most of 1916 the British leadership had been so burned by Gallipoli and Kut that they seem to have given up on the possibility of a comprehensive Ottoman defeat, with Arab and Jewish causes largely employed for propaganda value.
One note, Germany did hand administration of southern Poland and parts of Silesia to Austria during the war, becoming the General Government of Lublin, which operated alongside the German-administered General Government of Warsaw, both on the lands of the new Polish Regency Council.
Splendid, as always! I would love to see another video detailing the war aims of the Ottoman Empire and Italy. Of all the belligerents of WWI, I have done the most research on the Ottomans (and the Central Powers more broadly) but the Turks are rarely covered in depth like the other Powers in discussions of the conflict. Italy also occupied an interesting position, having shirked its prewar alliance to fight alongside the Allies. Great work, and I look forward to more!
@@Eltonthaqis The Ottomans would likely have gained territory in the Caucasus and the Aegean in the even of victory, with possible gains in the Sinai/Egypt, though the near 0% possibility of a complete British collapse would have made any concession west of the Canal incredibly unlikely. Most likely Italy is forced to return the Dodecanese and maybe Libya, and the Greeks are forced to return Crete and some other small islands. The gains would not have been huge, and Ottoman priorities would have been focused on maintaining the integrity of the imperial superstructure after the massive destabilization of the war. With the discovery of vast quantities of oil in the region, the Ottoman Empire would have been in a remarkable position to enrich and revitalize if it had survived intact. I recommend The Fall of the Ottomans (Eugene Rogan) and When the War Came Home (Yigit Akin) for reading on the Ottoman position in WWI.
Would've been cool to see you talk about the African and Asian gains from the war. I would've liked to see Japan discussed somewhat. (I remember you bringing up Japan before but it would've been cool to see how Japan factored into Geopolitical thinking about the GP's of the time. I also love how you laughed at the French for claiming SYRIA AND LEBANON BECAUSE OF THE CRUSADES. 😂😂😂😂 It made me giggle quite a bit.
It may seem absurd now, but Godfrey of Bouillon was a legend of French and wider European history. The French saw themselves as the protectors of Christianity in the Middle East and Africa and this idea still permeates the French Foreign Legion and to a lesser extent French conservatism to this day.
@@smal750 The Crusaders in popular memory, the flashiest characters and commanders were French. Soldiers came from Germany, Hungary, Austria, Italy and many other regions.
So well thought through as always, so as to bring clarity to what is often overcomplicated elsewhere. I keep recommending this channel for good reason. The US next? I watched a number of videos from US WW1 Museum Kansas. They are often pushing the number of Dough Boys as vital. They seem to underestimate the British and Commonwealth learning how to use mass armies and the development of combined arms, and the role of the Commonwealth in this, though obviously not a war aim, but a key factor in "Hundred Days". Lastly, the Russian plan for dividing Germany was interesting and not something I saw elsewhere, 1917 always getting the focus.
Great video as always, didn't know about Sazonov's plans, that would've crippled Germany and probably destroyed Austria. Any plans to cover the reign of Napoleon III? You mentioned him quite a lot in your videos, I think it would be great to have a video dedicated to his reign. His impact in European diplomacy is too often overlooked : it was he who broke the order of the Congress of Vienna (or the Metternich system), first by humbling Russia with British help, then by destroying Austria's dominance in Italy. The obvious weakness of the Habsburgs, revealed by Napoleon III (outdated military equipment and organization, diplomatic isolation), comforted Prussia in its ability to defeat Austria (while Italian unification revived German nationalism, somewhat extinguished since the revolutions of 1848-49) and paved the way for Bismarck's wars. The rest is history.
1:35 Ironically worsened these issues rather than solved them except maybe in France. By the end of the war, Ireland, besides the north was independent Industrial unrest resulted in the Bolshevik Revolution The SPD was running Germany, and declared the Weimar Republic And ethnic tensions destroyed Austria Hungary
It's only a small part of the video, but I think this is the first time I've truly understood how poor German finances were. You excellently put it in perspective.
Historical fact: with every nosebleed Wilhelm expressed the hope, the last drop of English blood, had lost him. Now whole Britain left the EU. He couldn't believe his luck! 😅
37:57 😂😂 I'm gonna enjoy the spectacle of you trying to entangle anglo-French policy and arab factions -if you decide to include them fully- in the region, though I'm starting to believe you'll actually manage to do it justice. I hope you'll cover at least untill 1926, i obviously have a bias but bin sauds rise and British policy in arabia always fascinated me. An even better quality as always, thank you for the great work.
In all true honesty Austria-Hungary had the least to gain from the war as it was unrealistic to annex more territories due to the already present strains within its multi ethnic empire (which was kept together through a complex series of bribes to the detriment of military spent). It’s no surprise that Emperor Charles tried as early 2916 to seek a separate peace with the entente.
I recommend you make another video on the neutrons like Italy, the ottoman empire and the balkans. This is it interesting because there are plans from ww1 we may not know about to this day.
This really should be a series of its own tbh, I would like to see the aims of other belligerents in the war such as the Ottomans, Italians, Serbs etc.
Great to see a well researched video on post war ambitions of the main european actors of WW1. What was your sources for Austria-Hungary’s ambitions? It’s quite hard to find books that go in depth into Austro Hungarian politics in its final decade
Your chuckle when talking about the French claim to Syria using the crusades made me laugh aloud, since normally you give off many quick, dry jokes delivered in the same scholarly tone as the rest of the information. Hearing you actually laugh at the absurdity thus made it even funnier than it already was
One slight issue with this video is how it portrays Russian capabilities in 1917. Make no mistake, Russia was losing the war, and causalities were extremely high, equipment low, and famines mounting faster than in anywhere else. Stories abound of Russian food literally rotting on trains due to poor infrastructure. Kerensky's July offensive was so bad, causalities almost Stalingrad levels of insane, that it was probably one of the reasons for why the Soviets got so popular and kept power despite there stupidity. There is a reason why one of Nicolas the seconds worst decisions was taking full responsibility for the endless Russian Incompetence. Its also why Lenin got so popular, in his famous Land, Peace and Bread speech, peace was one of the major parts (obviously). This is why they actually agreed to the disastrous Brest-Listovsk treaty, as peace was a major point of popularity.
35:34 and 35:36 if you look in the top-right of the screen there's this weird river-movement. It doesn't hinder the message of the video, but it is odd
13:49 Well that prediction came true The US and Russia dominated the world for the entire latter half of the 20th century, with her majesty’s dominions almost always backing up the US, while also interfering in Africa all the time
When you have more people than all of your neighbors, good geography, and decent relations with most of your neighbors, economic influence is only natural.
@@wishbones170today only very few Germans are sad because of the loss of German Eastern territories. Of course they mostly belong to Poland. But Poland is a very good buffer to Russia. And I don't know any Germans who want Russian neighbourhood 😅
I’m not sure I understand your wording about a “Vicious cycle” of Germany’s war aims. I mean, at which point in the war would Britain have accepted a status quo antebellum, for example? It seems like anytime after 1914, anything less than the unconditional surrender of Germany was out of the question in the opinion of the British Government. So how exactly was Germany supposed to break this “vicious cycle”?
You could certainly make the case all nations were locked in their own version of a vicious cycle, my attribution of it to Germany was not meant to argue no other country suffered a similar predicament. I would however, say that the British situation was different. It's true Lloyd-George rejected compromise peace's, and wished for a 'knock out blow'. But Britain did not necessarily need to inflict that knock out blow in the way Germany did.
Very small flaw: the saar borders you used were wrong, those are from ww2. The ww1 saar lacked some lands in the north and in the west meaning it didn’t border Luxembourg.
I find it interesting that the German war goals and the reasoning behind them have generally held up quite well, even if though German aggression obviously had devastating long term consequences for Europe. The 20th century was indeed the era of continental land empires with the US and Soviets as the main players and once Russia lost Ukraine they were relegated to a secondary power. The EU as an alternative to a unipolar US empire also plays into this. Meanwhile the western colonial empires exhausted themselves in their fight against Germany and disintegrated after the war such that Germany is now stronger than either Britain or France despite losing both world wars. In a way, the German analysis turned out to be a self fulfilling prophecy.
With only a few exceptions, German interests were always and exclusively focused on Europe. Colonies were considered unnecessary, costly and burdensome. Both points of view turned out to be correct.
I would be really interested in seeing your video on the drama of the collapse of the Ottoman empire, especially on how the complete collapse of Russia swung it so heavily. Would also be interested to hear what your research says about the war aims of other powers, including the later powers of Italy, the United States and the Ottomans and the lesser powers of Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria and Romania; also of the non-European powers like Japan and then-Siam as well as the British dominions, especially South Africa and Australia.
Clark mentions it in 'The Sleepwalkers' as does, T. G. Otte in his article 'Détente 1914: Sir William Tyrrell's secret mission to Germany' if I am remembering correctly. If you check my earlier video on the Tyrell mission I think I cite the actual quote from Clark there.
Corrections: triple alliance did not demand Italy join a defensive war, only that Italy not join Russia id Russia joined war against Austria. This actually was therefore a stab in the back to be clear
I found myself wondering what were the real war aims of The United States upon your conclusion. I hope you're able to complete that part of the picture.
A pity this doesn't discuss Italy's aims. It's a matter that is given far too little discussion in general, beyond brief mentions of "Italia irredenta" and generic Mediterranean and colonial ambitions, that doesn't quite scratch the surface, and of course the end result of the perceived "mutilated victory" that helped with the rise of Fascism postwar. Besides, for better or for worse, Italy back then WAS considered a great power, so it seems quite the issue.
This is a revamp of a old video he did , a previous video dicussed ottoman and italy war aims th-cam.com/video/inUtzRHCbn0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ohPSys-eO7a3g3Q2
A point on the hugarian position on Serbia: A prerequisite demanded by the hungarian parliment to allow a declaration of war was that no Serbian land would be annexed
6:08 finally someone who gives Italy some justice! We both had been sharpening the axes since 1866, we were only the first to draw ours. It was not our “stab” that was unnatural, the alliance itself was! We wanted a strong partnership with Germany because we were both newborn nations, and back in the 1880s we needed a partner of some kind to enter the diplomatic world: people don’t understand how different Italy was between WW1 and WW2... the 1900s liberal kingdom was much closer to our current republic than to the nationalist dictatorship of the 1920s, 30s and 40s: our sympathies stood with the Entente: though we had some issues with Britain over colonial matters, the relationship with Russia was amicable and tensions with France had been buried for a while. While we always hated the Habsburgs, the relationship with Germany was complicated: there were strong economic ties and a sense of admiration towards such a well functioning state... but the increasingly imperialistic nature of Berlin worried us not less than everyone else in Europe. We had no interest in helping Germany become a world power, since that would’ve put us in a vassalage condition; in a way, the same feeling of admiration and fear gripped the fascist government in WW2, though with much less dignity and much worse results.
Interesting bit about British ME aims: there was an ongoing "cold war" between the India and Egypt offices at the time. Most of this video outlines Cairo's ambitions for this region, esp with regard to the Arabs. New Delhi had planned on a much greater role for the Saudi family, and until William Shakespeare's death, it looked like Ibn Saud would be a British client
you don't see a problem with a German influenced British historian writing whitewashed history about Germans being less barbaric? the title alone is probably to divert from the first "Deluge" which was the Swedish invasion of Poland and seems to be historically the first de-Slaving of Polish lands by German peoples.@@OldBritannia
I hope you enjoy this semi-redo of my old war aims video on WW1. The earlier version is well over a year old and looking a bit tired in my opinion. This should hopefully go more in depth on areas I have not covered previously. I have still ended up feeling like I have only really scratched the service of Brest-Litovsk and the settlement in the Middle East. So they shall need their own videos eventually I think. Nonetheless, thank you for watching.
Edit: I’ve seen someone suggest the topic of Ukraine in this video is too political. To be clear, the information presented here is mainly
analysis from Sean McMeekin, Alexander Watson and Dominic Lieven. The latter is probably the foremost English language historian on early 20th Russian diplomacy currently. His analysis was written before 2014 and was not influenced by the current crisis. I have no real interest in dealing with current affairs on this channel (and no one is here to hear me talk about them) but I also do not think it would be right to ignore the importance of Ukraine to Russia and Germany in WW1, or how the Russians justified their invasion of Galicia.
Do scandivania videos
Are you planning on redoing the British Empire series too? I’ve seen it’s not available anymore.
@@rimpak7748 Maybe i will,currently i am busy though.Thanks for the reccomendation though!
you should do one on the war aims of the powers in WW2
@@haliteblade62241 later cant do it now
The thought of AH gaining Silesia and Bavaria just seems odd. It just feels strange that in this scenario they could’ve net gained land even though they would have lost.
Silesia I don't know but Bavaria likely indignantly would have rejected this merger.
When I think of what feasibly might have changed the war's course: Austria-Hungary ceding some border land inhabited by Italian speakers to Italy in exchange for neutrality (while promising Nice, Savoy, Corsica, and Tunisia) and compromising with Hungary in 1867 without giving *all of Transylvania* to Hungary so as to aim Romanian ambition toward Russian Bessarabia instead of a Magyarized Transylvania might have helped improve Central Powers access to food (which Romania exported and Italy could have imported and re-exported). A Greater Bulgaria and Albania at Serbia's expense would have neutralized Serbia and improved Mediterranean access. These moves would have put the Central Powers on a firmer foundation, enabled maximization of Russian defeat, and made provocation of American entry less likely; they would have improved Central Powers endurance in a long attritional war.
Austria- Hungary should cooperate with Germany much more or not start the war at all. 1) invite some German generals to reform and train Austro- Hungarian army (just like Turkey did). IRL They performed best under German leadership.
2) listen to Von Moltke about compromise with Italy.
3) consult with Germany about offensive actions.
@@alexzero3736german generals sucked commanding ottoman armies and Germany often used the Habsburg armies as cannon fodder
@@Brian----- Perhaps, but I do not see any way the Hungarians would have voluntarily ceded any land to the Romanians. Remember that the Hungarians had a lot of autonomy thanks to the Ausgleich, and any attempt to force them to cede land to Romania would have caused the collapse of the fragile Austro-Hungarian union.
@@wolfgang6517 ottomans performed pretty well in WW1, no? In Gallipoli, in Syria and Iraq...
The US entry is a really interesting moment, the first time that a non European/Mediterranean state held significant sway over European politics, it must have been a bizarre moment where a new world state dictated terms in the old world
one could argue this really began with the spanish american war, but that was on a much smaller scale and less impactful than this obviously. however since Teddy i think you could track a slowly growing American presence in overseas (and due to the nature of that imperial era, European) politics leading to 1917, a moment which outwardly marked a transition of global hegemony from one Anglo nation to another, ultimately culminating in the 1921 Washington Naval Conference (which solidified the USA’s navy as an equal to the UK’s). Definitely a shock to the well established powers-that be, though most of them were probably more concerned about simply surviving rather than reflecting on the new policies of the United States at the time.
@@dropandy1453 I don’t really think you could classify the US as an Anglo nation, culturally it’s very different from the UK, and from cultural influences and heritage it’s extremely different especially in economics and foreign policy. While the US is a predominantly English speaking nation it is and was distinct from British English, so I would only say Anglo in the broader linguistic sense.
@@matthewdavid6134if you’re referring to European migration to America, that’s vastly overstated
Most White Americans are plurality or majority British by descent, but nobody puts down English as a ethnicity in the census because it’s considered boring, even in the Upper South where almost all White Americans are of entirely scots Irish and English stock, people put down American as their ethnicity to seem more interesting
Lots of people will have a single ancestor from Sweden or Poland and make it their whole identity, completely ignoring the colonial side of their ancestry
@@Weezerflorida German is the most common ancestry in the US.
I've been thinking about this a lot studying the war recently. An American army fighting in Europe- not a British colonial force but the military of an independent American great power- must have been such a bizarre new thing. It's like when Jack Donaghy on _30 Rock_ said "how can a company from Philadelphia own a company from New York!?"
French claims to Syria (including Lebanon) were not just romantic bs. The French for centuries saw themselves as the protectors of Middle Eastern Christians, especially the Maronite Catholics, and the French for a long time had an advantageous position due to the Franco-Ottoman alliance. In 1860 they intervened in a civil war between the Maronites and Druze. The French also built railways in Syria/Lebanon and pursued other business opportunities - the classic colonial playbook.
French colonial efforts were often focused along religious lines, not just in the Middle East, but in Indochina and Algeria as well, with a heavy emphasis on missionary conversions of the natives to Roman Catholicism. It is interesting that France, the Republican power for most of its post-1815 history, was a stronger champion of Christianity in its foreign policy than Great Britain, with its conservative motto of “God, King, and Country.” The British instead felt no remorse for throwing Christians under the bus in order to preserve the balance of power, nor did they heavily promote missionary activity in their colonies.
Not for long, in 1941 Australia turned up and sent the French home at the end of their bayonets.
@@seanlander9321
the only thing you did was to wait REAL men do the work against the germans while you bri*ish girls were too afraid to even get off your tiny disgusting useless foggy island.
Very insightful, ty
@@wolliveryoutube That seems contradictory though, didn't France invade the papacy, dismantled the church in both France and their conquered territories, and stripped away most power away from the clergy? But at the same time they claimed to care about Christians. Was it just against the church then?
I'm really grateful you included Austria-Hungary in this. All eight of my immigrant ancestors came to the United States from what were then known as "Austrian Galicia" and "Upper Hungary" in the years immediately preceding or following WWI. The decline and collapse of the Habsburg Empire was one of the most seminal events in European history and had far-reaching global consequences, but it's a story that almost never gets told in English-language historical discussions about the early 20th century.
Only the Ottomans and Russian monarchy had a collapse as dramatic.
Francesco Nitti, Prime Minister of Italy,
September 1924:
"No country was perished more viciously in
Trianon than Hungary. But this country is
dwelled by spiritually strong people, who won't
be resigned to the demolition of their country.
Hungary's dismembering is so dishonourable
that no one takes responsibility for it.
Everybody acts like they don't know about it,
everybody is in coy silence. The reference to
the right of nations' self-determination is only
an untrue formula... they misused their victory
in the most vicious way... There's no French,
English or Italian who would accept the
conditions forced to Hungary for their own
nation..."
Herbert Henry Asquith, Prime Minister of the
United Kingdom for 8 years, 1925:
"This treaty is no work of statesmen, but the
result of severe and fatal deceptions."
Vladimir Iljic Lenin:
"The treaty was forced down their throat, but
this is a usurious treaty, the treaty of murderers
and butchers... unprecedented, predacious
treaty... this is no treaty, these are conditions
that scampsmen dictate with knives in their
hands to unprotected victims."
Lloyd George, Prime Minister of the U.K., in his
speech on the 7th of October, 1929:
"The whole documentation that we received
from our allies at the peace talk, was deceitfuland untrue. We came to a decision on false
principles"
Arthur Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of
the U.K.:
"The result of the Treaty of Trianon in Europe is
not peace, but the fear of another war."
Hi are you Rusyn or Lemko?
Germany eventually got that European customs union 100 years later, in large part thanks to losing both world wars
The world just wasn't ready yet
Wars are more complicated: sometimes you find defeated victors and victorious loosers. So here: Germany achieved its main goal, which means the destruction of the Triple Entente. Russia sank in chaos, France was severely weakened, GB no longer ruled the waves alone. Instead it became financial deeply dependent on the USA.
German industry stayed intact. The payment of most of the reparations to the Allies was successfully sabotaged. Newly founded Eastern European States - once ruled by Austria and Russia - very soon became satellites of the German economy. Germany had not to fear a new encirclement by a New Triple Entente.
Reichsbund von Mitteleuropa> EU
It's really amazing how not even the loss of the two greatest wars ever stopped the rise of Germany.
The cold war probably plays a part in that I suspect.
But I don't know anything about Germany post ww2 beyond the fact it was dissected into several parts.
Another banger vid.
Too many histories of the First World War gloss over the fact that so many of the great powers involved in the war really fought themselves to exhaustion over the course of it. Austria-Hungary and Russia both imploded, while Germany strained herself so hard that she was wracked with upheaval for years afterwards. In France's and Italy's cases, it's really a miracle that they didn't collapse in some way by the end of the conflict.
Side note, another war aim of AH was the creation of a large Albania under their domination. Both as a useful counterbalance to the small slavic states around it, but also to prevent Italy from strategically bottling Austria up in the Adriatic
France came close (Nivelle offensive). Even the small powers did: Bulgarian crackup in September 1918 effectively ended the war.
I'd say that while Russia imploded, Austria-Hungary more or less just evaporated away under the pressure of economic collapse, starvation and Entante diplomatic intransigence.
France had 10 million men turning over in 1918. Far from collapsing.
Italy didn't straight up collapse but keep in mind that WW1 was the catalyst of the massive strikes of the "Biennio Rosso" (Caused by the economy being in tatters after mobilising everyone including 18 years olds and the difficulty of reconverting to peace time industry as well as the difficulty in handling the massive numbers of working age veterans no longer fit for work due to injuries) which likewise resulted in reactionary forces consolidating around the movement of the fasces (Soon to be renamed with its better known name, the National Fascist Party) and then we all know how it went.
So while it didn't straight up collapse like Tzarist Russia or Austria-Hungary, it was definitely pushed to the brink and faced heavy consequences for its war effort.
WW1 is so crazy for this. Europe fought itself to utter exhaustion (France, Britain, Germany, Italy) or to the collapse of their state all together (Russia, AH, the ottomans) all over... pedestrian territorial and colonial ambitions? Continental security concerns? WW1 was a huge shift in european society because afterwards there wasn't a single war aim that could justify the ruin it caused.
It’s always a good day when Old Britannia posts
Indeed, it is like a refreshing breeze on a hot day. Love your videos, brother! 🇬🇧
Yeah!
Honestly a holiday
Indeed
indeed
37:58 I love how OldBritannia is trying not to laugh at the absurdness of it lol
I'm sharing a comment made by @matthiasm4299 for it says it all
"French claims to Syria (including Lebanon) were not just romantic bs. The French for centuries saw themselves as the protectors of Middle Eastern Christians, especially the Maronite Catholics, and the French for a long time had an advantageous position due to the Franco-Ottoman alliance. In 1860 they intervened in a civil war between the Maronites and Druze. The French also built railways in Syria/Lebanon and pursued other business opportunities - the classic colonial playbook."
@@fireandblood8142 I mean I know they considered themselves the protectors of Christians in the Middle East, however going back all the way to the crusades seems like a stretch, at least in my opinion, there’s a big gap between the crusades and the 1800s.
@@garrettallen7427 The thing is that this was only one justification for their claims among all the others that I gave you just above, which are much more serious than, I grant you, romantic feelings linked to the crusades. Lebanon had in fact been a French quasi-protectorate since 1860, so Britain could not simply claim it or give it to an Arab kingdom without encroaching on already established French influence.
This video is incredibly detailed and well-researched. It's unbelievably refreshing to hear someone talk about this topic intelligently instead of parroting generic modern talking points without any critical analysis.
A Sykes-Picot deep-dive would be very interesting. Few treaties from the WW1 era still has such an influence on modern geopolitics as Sykes-Picot.
It’s less influential than you’d think. The middle eastern situation was stable until Israel was established
@@ScipioVision Israel only came to exist because Sykes-Picot
I always enjoy your videos. I appreciate that unlike many "history" youtubers, you stay within your area of expertise in which it is clear you have done substantial reading. Too many youtubers fall into the trap of becoming generalists, producing shallow scripts often taken straight out of wikipedia, or at best, one or two general histories.
Binged your videos a while back and very much enjoyed them, glad to see this expanded remake of your early WW1 war aims video.
What happened to your channel? I remember your command and conquer videos but were they taken down?
@@stevemcgroob4446 Wow, I'm amazed anyone remembers! I had to take them down due to the copyright rules changing. I have thought about making more video content since then, but again horror stories about content ID from creators I follow has always put me off.
@BlameThande I see, I've heard the same stories myself. TH-cam has changed a lot since then, and I don't blame anyone for not wanting to deal with that. I've been a longtime fan of your other web project, so that's how I remember.
Since you're still using TH-cam, there are a couple of other history focused channels I recommend for binging.
Odd Compass focuses on Indian history.
Strategy Stuff studies political movements and war planning.
And Ancient Americas covers a lot of pre-Columbian archeology and history.
I’m a great fan of your channel and the topics of your videos! So much to unfold about history’s conflicts, we often just focus on the final results of conflicts.
Thank you for always posting your sources at the end of your videos. In addition to emphasizing the academic rigor of your preparation, they provide a great invitation for further study to us, the viewers.
Your analysis is always so thoughtful, reasoned, and logical. I can’t get enough!
Brilliant. I wish all history teachers were like you. So through yet to the point.
Excellent video as always. You continue to be one of the best TH-cam history channels, and I find the way the videos are presented to be aesthetically very pleasing, well worth the remake of this topic. Are you planning on doing a follow-up video covering the aims of the minor powers like Italy, Serbia, Greece and Romania?
Thank you. I have an earlier video on the Balkans, Italy and the Ottomans. If I'm being perfectly honest, it probably the worst still up on the channel, and I in some ways regret making it. I don't have a particularly great grasp of nineteenth/ early twentieth century Balkan history and I think that video showed it. But yes, with a lot more research there will probably be a remake in the future.
Another great video! I would love to see future videos about Breast-Litovsk, Sykes-Picot, and the Versailles Conference
Brest
I’ve wondered what would’ve happened what would’ve happened if in the Franco-Prussian war, Germany didn’t annex Alsaus Loraine. Germany didn’t annex Austro Hungarian lands sone years before and that worked out well for them. Maybe instead a colony of roughly equal value could’ve been a better option. Yeah, France would still lose land, but it would’ve been an easier pill to swallow and may very well have at the very least not have created such a hostile attitude towards Berlin, allowing Germany to somewhat secure their western border.
I think given that scenario France would have remained largely neutral, but it wouldn't necessarily mean Germany just marches east. Russian industrialisation was part bankrolled by France, who wanted a Germany threatened on her flank. Without french finance, Russias rapid industrialisation may not have threatened Berlin as much as it did. That's not even to mention how the breakdown of the Russo-German pact may not have happened if France wasn't presenting itself as an eager partner, looking to tear Germany's alliance apart.
We may well have had an Austria isolated diplomatically and forced to accept a compromise in 1914. Who knows how long the status quo could have lasted.
This is unpredictable...
There would be less anti- german sentiment obviously, but France itself would be more powerful saving main army supply depots. And Germany taking colonies in Africa could rise a competition between Germany and UK after Berlin Congress. So Franco- British alliance is still possible and it would be even more dangerous for Germany than IRL.
Also it doesn't affect relations with Austria- Hungary, there won't be an isolation, as German generals were cautious about Russia and belived that war right now ( in 1914) is much better than giving Russia a chance to build up their industry and do rearmament.
France could not stomach not being the major land power in europe. They would always seek to check germany in any way possible so if anything the prussians failure was in not breaking france to the point it it could no longer be a major threat again especially with such an overwhelming victory in the franco prussian war
Reading some of the sources not just from French, but also from British politicians, the creation of the German Empire itself was considered a major upheaval that threatened the balance of power in Europe to any of its neighbors. Anti-German propaganda in France may have lost one argument, but France still wouldn't have trusted such a big power popping up right next door. Not to mention that even in this scenario, Bismarck's policy of keeping France diplomatically isolated after the war to avoid retaliation likely still would have happened. All in all, it just shows how unique the post-WW2 European order and economical integration was in how it dissuaded any further conflicts.
@@UnholyWrath3277I agree, real balance between the great landpowers could have never prevented war. Either France, Germany or Russia would have had to dominate the continent
It just so happens that you've released this while I'm drawing a portrait of William Ormsby-Gore, a British MP and officer in the war who not only opposed British territorial spoils but actively criticized the entire concept of the British Empire. Needless to say he was no friend of Mark Sykes. But at the same time, for most of 1916 the British leadership had been so burned by Gallipoli and Kut that they seem to have given up on the possibility of a comprehensive Ottoman defeat, with Arab and Jewish causes largely employed for propaganda value.
Yo, that sounds cool, ping us a link when you’re done
A video with such amazing borders & historical context, I love your work man! Keep it up!
Always a good day when you upload!
You've done a really good job on removing the bias from your videos, which from your work around a year ago was, at times, very evident.
Dumbest comment ever
Thank you for the quality content! It is really well structured and it must take a lot of effort to make it. Your work is appreciated! :)
Thankyou, glad you’re enjoying it.
One note, Germany did hand administration of southern Poland and parts of Silesia to Austria during the war, becoming the General Government of Lublin, which operated alongside the German-administered General Government of Warsaw, both on the lands of the new Polish Regency Council.
The video is good as usual, don’t stop uploading content and thank you for what you do
Splendid, as always! I would love to see another video detailing the war aims of the Ottoman Empire and Italy. Of all the belligerents of WWI, I have done the most research on the Ottomans (and the Central Powers more broadly) but the Turks are rarely covered in depth like the other Powers in discussions of the conflict. Italy also occupied an interesting position, having shirked its prewar alliance to fight alongside the Allies.
Great work, and I look forward to more!
Italy and Austria both liked Germany but despised each other...
@@Eltonthaqis The Ottomans would likely have gained territory in the Caucasus and the Aegean in the even of victory, with possible gains in the Sinai/Egypt, though the near 0% possibility of a complete British collapse would have made any concession west of the Canal incredibly unlikely. Most likely Italy is forced to return the Dodecanese and maybe Libya, and the Greeks are forced to return Crete and some other small islands. The gains would not have been huge, and Ottoman priorities would have been focused on maintaining the integrity of the imperial superstructure after the massive destabilization of the war. With the discovery of vast quantities of oil in the region, the Ottoman Empire would have been in a remarkable position to enrich and revitalize if it had survived intact.
I recommend The Fall of the Ottomans (Eugene Rogan) and When the War Came Home (Yigit Akin) for reading on the Ottoman position in WWI.
@@gumdeo Indeed, though it was the Italians who ultimately chose to act on that enmity.
1:36 pppllleeaassseee make a video explaining these/issues countries faced internally during ww1 (and mabye others?)
Would've been cool to see you talk about the African and Asian gains from the war. I would've liked to see Japan discussed somewhat. (I remember you bringing up Japan before but it would've been cool to see how Japan factored into Geopolitical thinking about the GP's of the time. I also love how you laughed at the French for claiming SYRIA AND LEBANON BECAUSE OF THE CRUSADES. 😂😂😂😂
It made me giggle quite a bit.
It may seem absurd now, but Godfrey of Bouillon was a legend of French and wider European history. The French saw themselves as the protectors of Christianity in the Middle East and Africa and this idea still permeates the French Foreign Legion and to a lesser extent French conservatism to this day.
The crusaders WERE french tho salty anglo
@@smal750 The Crusaders in popular memory, the flashiest characters and commanders were French. Soldiers came from Germany, Hungary, Austria, Italy and many other regions.
Never getting tired of these videos
So well thought through as always, so as to bring clarity to what is often overcomplicated elsewhere.
I keep recommending this channel for good reason.
The US next? I watched a number of videos from US WW1 Museum Kansas. They are often pushing the number of Dough Boys as vital. They seem to underestimate the British and Commonwealth learning how to use mass armies and the development of combined arms, and the role of the Commonwealth in this, though obviously not a war aim, but a key factor in "Hundred Days".
Lastly, the Russian plan for dividing Germany was interesting and not something I saw elsewhere, 1917 always getting the focus.
Great video as always, didn't know about Sazonov's plans, that would've crippled Germany and probably destroyed Austria.
Any plans to cover the reign of Napoleon III? You mentioned him quite a lot in your videos, I think it would be great to have a video dedicated to his reign. His impact in European diplomacy is too often overlooked : it was he who broke the order of the Congress of Vienna (or the Metternich system), first by humbling Russia with British help, then by destroying Austria's dominance in Italy. The obvious weakness of the Habsburgs, revealed by Napoleon III (outdated military equipment and organization, diplomatic isolation), comforted Prussia in its ability to defeat Austria (while Italian unification revived German nationalism, somewhat extinguished since the revolutions of 1848-49) and paved the way for Bismarck's wars. The rest is history.
Thank you for this high quality content. I am delighted to learn history from you !
1:35 Ironically worsened these issues rather than solved them except maybe in France.
By the end of the war, Ireland, besides the north was independent
Industrial unrest resulted in the Bolshevik Revolution
The SPD was running Germany, and declared the Weimar Republic
And ethnic tensions destroyed Austria Hungary
It would be really nice to see a part 2 perhaps, for the secondary powers in the war (Mostly Italy but also Japan, Romania, Bulgaria and USA
Thanks for the great content.
Highly enjoyable review. Some very interesting information that I wasn't so familiar with (particularly Austrian intents for Poland).
It's only a small part of the video, but I think this is the first time I've truly understood how poor German finances were. You excellently put it in perspective.
Great video as always. Keep it up!
The Kaiser’s ghost reacting to a European economic union with Germany at its center.
“Dreams do come true.”
Historical fact: with every nosebleed Wilhelm expressed the hope, the last drop of English blood, had lost him. Now whole Britain left the EU. He couldn't believe his luck! 😅
U.S.-"Phew,that was ah great war,Britain.Here's
ah revolving charge card. Just pay the interest
&we'll sporadically raise your credit limit."
Keep up the great work!
This was a great video. I thoroughly enjoyed it!
When the world needed him the most, he arrived
LOVE your work. What about doing a video about the war aims of the Royalists / Parliamentarians in the English Civil Wars?
37:57 😂😂
I'm gonna enjoy the spectacle of you trying to entangle anglo-French policy and arab factions -if you decide to include them fully- in the region, though I'm starting to believe you'll actually manage to do it justice.
I hope you'll cover at least untill 1926, i obviously have a bias but bin sauds rise and British policy in arabia always fascinated me.
An even better quality as always, thank you for the great work.
In all true honesty Austria-Hungary had the least to gain from the war as it was unrealistic to annex more territories due to the already present strains within its multi ethnic empire (which was kept together through a complex series of bribes to the detriment of military spent). It’s no surprise that Emperor Charles tried as early 2916 to seek a separate peace with the entente.
Babe wake up! Old Brittania posted!
Always fascinating learning about this era.
Wonderfull and capivating video as always.
I recommend you make another video on the neutrons like Italy, the ottoman empire and the balkans. This is it interesting because there are plans from ww1 we may not know about to this day.
This really should be a series of its own tbh, I would like to see the aims of other belligerents in the war such as the Ottomans, Italians, Serbs etc.
Great to see a well researched video on post war ambitions of the main european actors of WW1. What was your sources for Austria-Hungary’s ambitions? It’s quite hard to find books that go in depth into Austro Hungarian politics in its final decade
Ring of Steel by Watson is probably the best modern work. David Stevenson in his 1914-1918 also quite good.
Your chuckle when talking about the French claim to Syria using the crusades made me laugh aloud, since normally you give off many quick, dry jokes delivered in the same scholarly tone as the rest of the information. Hearing you actually laugh at the absurdity thus made it even funnier than it already was
Really interesting and informative First World War video, thank you
Please consider making more of these War Aims videos. Also, please make a playlist for the subject.
Cheers for great content.
15:18
"By late war, Berlin had become bored of Habsburgs incompetence..." lmao :D
Same as Berlin had become bored of Italy's incompetence in WW2
"Next time without Italy!" Japanese joke to German visitors.😅
Im wholehearted convinced that the major aim of ww1 powers was to test all those fun new modern toys
One slight issue with this video is how it portrays Russian capabilities in 1917. Make no mistake, Russia was losing the war, and causalities were extremely high, equipment low, and famines mounting faster than in anywhere else. Stories abound of Russian food literally rotting on trains due to poor infrastructure. Kerensky's July offensive was so bad, causalities almost Stalingrad levels of insane, that it was probably one of the reasons for why the Soviets got so popular and kept power despite there stupidity. There is a reason why one of Nicolas the seconds worst decisions was taking full responsibility for the endless Russian Incompetence. Its also why Lenin got so popular, in his famous Land, Peace and Bread speech, peace was one of the major parts (obviously). This is why they actually agreed to the disastrous Brest-Listovsk treaty, as peace was a major point of popularity.
35:34 and 35:36 if you look in the top-right of the screen there's this weird river-movement. It doesn't hinder the message of the video, but it is odd
13:49
Well that prediction came true
The US and Russia dominated the world for the entire latter half of the 20th century, with her majesty’s dominions almost always backing up the US, while also interfering in Africa all the time
@@secretname4190 they still are
@@secretname4190Yes they were.
Awesome video as always
Old Brittania why do you have to post a video a day before my exam!?! It's literally impossible for me to wait until after the exam.
Ironically, even after losing 2 world wars, Germany still managed to achieve European domination anyway, but peacefully
Germany just has great geography, even after losing Silesia, Pomerania and Alsace-Lloraine
When you have more people than all of your neighbors, good geography, and decent relations with most of your neighbors, economic influence is only natural.
@@wishbones170today only very few Germans are sad because of the loss of German Eastern territories. Of course they mostly belong to Poland. But Poland is a very good buffer to Russia. And I don't know any Germans who want Russian neighbourhood 😅
love these vids
Britain might have won in WW1 but it paid for the victory with its empire.
Great video by the way.
Defeated Victor
I’m not sure I understand your wording about a “Vicious cycle” of Germany’s war aims. I mean, at which point in the war would Britain have accepted a status quo antebellum, for example? It seems like anytime after 1914, anything less than the unconditional surrender of Germany was out of the question in the opinion of the British Government. So how exactly was Germany supposed to break this “vicious cycle”?
You could certainly make the case all nations were locked in their own version of a vicious cycle, my attribution of it to Germany was not meant to argue no other country suffered a similar predicament. I would however, say that the British situation was different. It's true Lloyd-George rejected compromise peace's, and wished for a 'knock out blow'. But Britain did not necessarily need to inflict that knock out blow in the way Germany did.
Excellent video great job 10/10
37:57 that giggle got me
Good vid, thanks👍
Another great video
The Archduke incident was even more transparent than the Gleiwicz incident...
Very small flaw: the saar borders you used were wrong, those are from ww2. The ww1 saar lacked some lands in the north and in the west meaning it didn’t border Luxembourg.
I find it interesting that the German war goals and the reasoning behind them have generally held up quite well, even if though German aggression obviously had devastating long term consequences for Europe. The 20th century was indeed the era of continental land empires with the US and Soviets as the main players and once Russia lost Ukraine they were relegated to a secondary power. The EU as an alternative to a unipolar US empire also plays into this. Meanwhile the western colonial empires exhausted themselves in their fight against Germany and disintegrated after the war such that Germany is now stronger than either Britain or France despite losing both world wars. In a way, the German analysis turned out to be a self fulfilling prophecy.
With only a few exceptions, German interests were always and exclusively focused on Europe. Colonies were considered unnecessary, costly and burdensome. Both points of view turned out to be correct.
Love your videos!
I would be really interested in seeing your video on the drama of the collapse of the Ottoman empire, especially on how the complete collapse of Russia swung it so heavily. Would also be interested to hear what your research says about the war aims of other powers, including the later powers of Italy, the United States and the Ottomans and the lesser powers of Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria and Romania; also of the non-European powers like Japan and then-Siam as well as the British dominions, especially South Africa and Australia.
Always a good time, seeing your videos.
I love your guys content but could you guys start putting your sources in the description?!
Tiny nitpick: its SPD, not SDP
In english, the order is SDP
I mean we call Labour labour and not "Arbeit"..
But thanks, learned sth then!
babe wake up, old Britannia dropped a banger again
May I request a source for the statement about the Anglo-Russian ties breaking down? That seems like a good bit of reading.
I'm interested in that too
Clark mentions it in 'The Sleepwalkers' as does, T. G. Otte in his article 'Détente 1914: Sir William Tyrrell's secret mission to Germany' if I am remembering correctly. If you check my earlier video on the Tyrell mission I think I cite the actual quote from Clark there.
Great video as always, will you consider making videos on the boer wars?
Yes, definitely on the list for future videos.
Corrections:
triple alliance did not demand Italy join a defensive war, only that Italy not join Russia id Russia joined war against Austria.
This actually was therefore a stab in the back to be clear
I found myself wondering what were the real war aims of The United States upon your conclusion. I hope you're able to complete that part of the picture.
Excellent video.
Amazing job
Who won the First "Tour De France"?
The Fourth Panzer Division
Babe wake up old britannia posted
A pity this doesn't discuss Italy's aims. It's a matter that is given far too little discussion in general, beyond brief mentions of "Italia irredenta" and generic Mediterranean and colonial ambitions, that doesn't quite scratch the surface, and of course the end result of the perceived "mutilated victory" that helped with the rise of Fascism postwar.
Besides, for better or for worse, Italy back then WAS considered a great power, so it seems quite the issue.
Italy is still considered a great power
This is a revamp of a old video he did , a previous video dicussed ottoman and italy war aims th-cam.com/video/inUtzRHCbn0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ohPSys-eO7a3g3Q2
By Italians
Ah yes, the perfect Halloween video, the horrors of Geo-politics
Pretty wild that everyone - winner or loser - was worse off after the war but about 20 years later they were back at it.
A point on the hugarian position on Serbia:
A prerequisite demanded by the hungarian parliment to allow a declaration of war was that no Serbian land would be annexed
I be leaving these in the background while I drive
Do you think you’ll ever do a video on the July crisis itself or events right after the war like the German Revolution or Russian Cvil War?
Great video! From 🇦🇺
6:08 finally someone who gives Italy some justice! We both had been sharpening the axes since 1866, we were only the first to draw ours. It was not our “stab” that was unnatural, the alliance itself was! We wanted a strong partnership with Germany because we were both newborn nations, and back in the 1880s we needed a partner of some kind to enter the diplomatic world: people don’t understand how different Italy was between WW1 and WW2... the 1900s liberal kingdom was much closer to our current republic than to the nationalist dictatorship of the 1920s, 30s and 40s: our sympathies stood with the Entente: though we had some issues with Britain over colonial matters, the relationship with Russia was amicable and tensions with France had been buried for a while. While we always hated the Habsburgs, the relationship with Germany was complicated: there were strong economic ties and a sense of admiration towards such a well functioning state... but the increasingly imperialistic nature of Berlin worried us not less than everyone else in Europe. We had no interest in helping Germany become a world power, since that would’ve put us in a vassalage condition; in a way, the same feeling of admiration and fear gripped the fascist government in WW2, though with much less dignity and much worse results.
Interesting bit about British ME aims: there was an ongoing "cold war" between the India and Egypt offices at the time. Most of this video outlines Cairo's ambitions for this region, esp with regard to the Arabs. New Delhi had planned on a much greater role for the Saudi family, and until William Shakespeare's death, it looked like Ibn Saud would be a British client
I'm kinda surprised America didn't her own section, given how important the late arrival ended up being to the final peace deal.
Does anyone have any good books about the economics of the Great War? It’s always my favorite part of these videos
Adam Tooze's 'The Deluge' is very good. Though honestly the 1914-1918 online encyclopedia does a pretty good job.
you don't see a problem with a German influenced British historian writing whitewashed history about Germans being less barbaric?
the title alone is probably to divert from the first "Deluge" which was the Swedish invasion of Poland and seems to be historically the first de-Slaving of Polish lands by German peoples.@@OldBritannia