Maybe dumb question but did Britain at any point in this period ever seriously consider an alliance with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (at least until the First Partition)? I know the latter was pretty weak by this time, but Britain had more in common with their type of government than with any other continental European power and an alliance with the PLC could maybe have checked expansion by Prussia/Russia/Austria.

Actually studying the reasoning behind the triggering of WWI makes you realise just how unfair the Treaty of Versailles was.

If the British had revealed the secret clause in the Anglo-Japanese Alliance where Britain categorically refused to go to war with the US under any circumstances, they might have been able to keep the Alliance, but remember the alliance was replaced by the Four and Nine Power Treaties which guaranteed Britain's economic presence in China.

Germany didn t start it

Lie!

Germany did not start the war, I'm sick of people telling Germans started WW1 , it was Austria Hungary...

Slavery was revived and lasted as long after the civill war.

Funny how, the British were at every major city in the U.S. that participated in the sale of slaves.

You like money $$$$$$$$ more than you hate slavery. The British enabler's. And to claim to be against slavery, and for it to let the trans Atlantic slave trade be revived if unbelievable.

Well, quit buying 80% of the cotton, if you really hated slavery, as you claim, you would have boycotted the South.

Very good summary if you want a nuanced answer of the different perspectives check out the this is history podcast as well

Austrias betrayal of Russia during the crimean war was the single most strategic failure of our empire ever and led ultimately to its downfall.

Trust.

12:00 The bottom part of Denmark (I think) looks like a small guy/kid arguing with a big fat man.

In between the time of germany willing the territories in the east and bolshevik revolution the soviets did tray is a republic multiple times the total number was nine times

Germany having austria hungry becomes a puppet for the germans is the equivalent of changing your country to a dying corpse

Thanks ❤

Britain should never of got involved. We lost too many good Englishmen and also so many traumatised and injured. We also ended up broke.

The simply reality is, he didn't use time to rearm, he simply didn't care about the international situation, all he cared about was keeping spending low because that was his brand. Only after the Fall of Prague did real rearming start. And the navy was more then ready to blockade Germany ever since literally Germany existed. The support of Italy was only lost because of spinelessness. Just as the support of Belgium had been lost because of the same thing. You are losing allies if you just give in to all your enemies. The Italian navy wasn't really a problem. The German navy wasn't a problem, German submarines were only really relevant AFTER the fall of France. Sure in 1936, if Germany, Italy and Japan had all gone against Britain, it would have been bad. But Japan at that point was also not nearly ready, and was already fighting a war. And Britain could outproduce Japan in terms of ships by a factor of more then 2:1. And Germany had enemies all around. The claim that the air-force were such a big problem is just nonsense. German planes operating from Germany against Britain were at the very end of their range. And the German air-force wasn't nearly as big as people make it out to be. Specifically because Germany need its air-force for other things then bombing London. This was just an excuse. If this was ACTUALLY THE REASON, why did air-force financing only go up by so little? So Britain strategy was literally just no to anything against anybody, and let all your enemies expand as much as they want, getting stronger, while doing almost nothing yourself, majorly under-funding the army and navy, only at best a minimal increase in financing of the air-force. That's not strategy, that' just giving up. And then at the worst possible time, he put a grantee on Poland joining the war at literally the worst possible time to do so. Czechs had a better army, Germany didn't have a trade relationship with Soviets at the time and a British blockade would have made the Germany rearming fall of a cliff right when in our timeline German army buildup was at its peak. Lets also remember the Chamberlain was the one who replace the anti-Nazi ambassador with a pro-Nazi one specifically because he didn't want to hear anti-Naz talk. So he was actually a clown.

I think a few reasons are as follows: The Kaiser was mentally unstable and had an inferiority complex because of a shortened arm. Because he had no restraints as the head of a country, there was no one to stop him from making poor and impulsive decisions, including starting a war without an exit plan(s).

Almost all wars are from hidden banking powers - The Germans had taken over the commercial ship trade market from the UK, The German banks were over taking the UK banks and the Bank of France in world power - The Black Hand was supported through the French Lodge and the Serb Gov't had zero idea of this. The Germans never wanted war and even when it started the Crown worked day and night to try to stop it. The Germans/Russians and the AH had worked out a deal to end the Serb -AH war. Serbia agreed to all the terms under Russian pressure - and AH broke the deal and attacked anyway. They sent to cable to Germany asking them for German support, but never said it was for war - The German King who was on a hunting trip though it was only for diplomatic support - and said yes we will .... Once the war was started Germany should have only gone on defense in the west - having huge forts and a deep defense and put 60% of the army vs Russia - knock it out and take the recourses to win in the West by 1919-1920... This is the plan that the German Crown wanted but was over ruled by his own Army

Well, it's an interesting way to look at it.

Whatever else might be true here, I think the Brits were still feeling the irretrievable loss of a nearly a generation of their sons in the trenches of the Great War. I think Chamberlain and the others felt that giving up a bit of 'German settled Czechoslovakia' seemed a small price to pay to avoid a repeat of such a disaster. I get the bad optics, but given the state of the British forces at the time vis a vis the German only the Royal Navy had influence and it's pretty clear that they could not have done much at all to aid the Czechs just as they were ineffectual against the invasion of Poland irrespective of a declaration of war. It was not until mid 1940 that the British got into the field in France that there was pushback such as it was. So, whilst Munich looks 'bad' it would not have made much practical difference. That being said, I think it is pretty clear that when the war began in earnest Chamberlain was not the man to run it and the Parliament chose well in Churchill for that great task. I think it would have been a far greater sign and sin of 'Appeasement' had England remained neutral after the invasion of the low countries and France.

Thank you. AEIOU Austria Erit In Orbe Ultima ... though only a moral power on the world stage if anything

I have to say, Britain pretending Sykes-Picot was because they didn't understand the scope of French ambitions and that they intended to honour their promises to the Arabs, then taking even more than France did smacks of "she weeps as she takes" even worse than Austria during the partition of Poland.

See Thomas G. Otte, “Détente 1914: Sir William Tyrrell‘s Secret Mission to Germany,” HJ 56/1 (2013), 175-204. You can read this on JSTOR.

Thank you for this hello from Brazil

Fair points. Seems to me that defending the flawed Treaty of Versailles PLUS Hitler's weaponization of German revanchism made an already dangerous game unmanageable. 1914-1944 was another 30 years' war.

Germany’s fatal mistake, I believe, came in the spring of 1890 when, after Bismarck left office, the new chancellor decided to abrogate the Reinsurgence Treaty with Russia. This marked a change in cautious Bismarckian foreign policy which fundamentally understood Germany’s exposed position on the continent, the resulting dangers of potentially alienating the great powers and the dangers of throwing away of the pragmatic humility that Bismarck understood his nation needed as a new power at the international table. (Especially given the revolutionary events of 1870.)

I have a question why where you calling the countries she of her

Miss the uploads!

In short... If somethings wrong with Britain pre-1700, blame France. Pre-1900, Blame France or America, 1900-1945, blame France, America, Germany. Post-1945, Blame America.

People saying Germany didn't start the war 😒 Technically, they didn't fire the first shots, but they definitely poked the stick. Austro-Hungarians got German backing and approvement. It's like how Nato relies heavily on the USA. Imagine them poking the stick at European nations to get going ( probably not a good example, but you get the idea).

Austria owned alot of money to London after Napoleon I.

I've for some time believed that the length of time between the original colonization of America (1607) and 1776 made London more and more distant. No taxation without representation was perhaps an afterthought of 'does anyone know any of those people?'

Keep up the good quality vids! Also part 2?

When newest video 😢

This channel is a hidden gem. Just subscribed

We fought two world wars between White people that nearly destroyed Europe and what do we have today?

She is lucky that it was because of men she succeeded

World War 1 and 2 well and truly destroyed Europe. It's Empires, influence, and power all waned after those 3 decades came to pass. That said, despite the UK and US having some beef, I'd say that working together from the start of the 20th Century would've done both of them some good in the long-term, looking at the situation of the 21st Century

Germany didn't start the war. It was an ally of Austria, surrounded by enemies, and could not leave them adrift. If Austria had not attacked Serbia, which they had been assured, by many as well as Germany, that they could do as a punitive measure, another casus belli would have been found. Germany was the last major power to mobilise, and only did so because France and Russia were mobilising on either side, the associated timescales left them little time to respond, and Britain had given the impression they would not intervene. The country which really caused the war was Britain, who wanted to eliminate Germany as an industrial rival.

Sometimes I wonder. If the British had embraced some of the Napoleonic ideals... would they still be slaves to bankers, an inbred monarchy and their autocratic Establishment?

Nice video mate but that accent with those long sentences makes it really hard to understanding quite a few things... Thanks anyway.

Good video very informative

3.06

So us Brits had ALL that land, then proceed to keep the shittiest, smallest bit of land out of all our empire?😂😂😂 sounds about right.

Lovely use of maps. Only one part jarred. The bit about Germany's tenacity leading to it's total defeat - and "EVEN the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk being annulled". It would hardly have been tenable for Germany (which was being saddled with war guilt) being able to hold on to a territory apparently bigger than its own complete country after it had lost the war. All in all Germany's ambitions do look unpleasantly greedy.

We got involved in a war that did not involve the British empire.the threat the empire was Japan not. Germany!😉😉😉😉

No. The real reason why Germany launched the first military campaign is because both France and Russia had mobilized their million man armies on Germany's borders, and the Kaiser feared that if they attacked simultaneously it would be all over for Germany. Mobilizing your army in the way France and Russia did was considered an act of war. Germany sought no territorial gains and had no other war objective other than to survive.