Why Germany Had to Start the War

[@OldBritannia]

I hope you enjoy this short video, looking at the strategic situation before WWI. I know it suffers a bit from focusing narrowly on a single potential cause of the First World War, but I hope that stops it getting lost in the weeds - i.e. Wilhelm and Franz Ferdinand's personal relationship being a reason Germany backed Austria in 1914, is undoubtedly an important factor, but would end confusing this video. Depending on what you think of it, we could potentially look at a few of the other theorised 'causes' in the future, i.e. a video on the Fischer thesis and so forth. Thank you all for watching, and thanks to Patron's for selecting the topic and reviewing it.

[@samueltunjano6774]

I would love more videos on the topic, keep up the great work!

[@garmia1839]

These videos are amazing! Could you consider making series on the real great game as well?

[@gaiuslamers8055]

Old brittania sometime you show italy having the island of rhodes pre world war one, they were only granted these turkish islands after World one 1

[@erichluepke855]

I think it's a helpful look into how your other theses on pre-WW1 Europe fit together. What exactly makes a European state successful, what allows it to survive? For Old Britania, it is these three things: 1. Strategically sound diplomacy 2. Prudent domestic policy, and 3. Deference to tradition, people, and good conscience. The case of 1914 seems to be a moment where these three principles of good statecraft were inoperable.

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

"I hope you enjoy this short video" Not gona watch it because of the blatantly false titule. Austria-Hungary is not Germany.

[@kira-kitty4769]

As a German who studied history, I'd like to add two things I've learned. 1.) Germany supported Austria in the July Crisis also out of a fear of alienating/losing them otherwise, leaving them truly alone. 2.) There was also the fear about the recent rise of the workers party. I think Bethmann-Hollweg estimated that three things would need to come together for a chance to win the war: Austrian participation, the support of the workers at home (which seemed likely if the war was against Russia) and Britain's neutrality (which initially also seemed achievable, until the realities of the Schlieffen plan settled in).

[@loverofyurigagarin1149]

Yeah wasn’t Belgium created as way to justify war?

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

And you would not like to contest that Germany started the war? It didnt.

[@Kleicomolo]

Point #1 has come up a bunch in the books I've read. It was feared that if Austria was left to flounder with no legal recourse for the assassination then it was far more likely to break with Germany in turn and join Italy in moving closer to the Entente.

[@overworlder]

@@loverofyurigagarin1149 - lol no.

[@overworlder]

Also Habsburg FM Berchtold felt he'd been humiliated by failing to contain Serb expansion in the 1912-13 Balkan wars and wanted to display toughness in 1914. There's always a personal element.

[@stevejurgens9836]

Poor Germany - too big for Europe, too small for the world...

[@WeirdMagnus]

Russia:

[@seanmoran2743]

Poor virtually friendless Britain It believed it was a continental power and then found out it wasn’t which broke it irreversibly

[@CalinGilea]

That’s a quote from Henry Kissinger 😊

[@crocodileguy4319]

​@@seanmoran2743 rent. free. sean

[@harrybaker8008]

@@seanmoran2743Britains never once thought of themselves as a continental power. Britain much preferred alliances to stay out of continental affairs and focus on the world

[@wattsnottaken1]

WW1 is so interesting. It’s insane how savage it was. The first insanely huge industrialized war. New technology = new weapons

[@smftrsddvjiou6443]

1914, the beginning of the end of Europe.

[@blorb32]

@@smftrsddvjiou6443 1945, 8th of May*

[@chrisstucker1813]

@@smftrsddvjiou6443yeah, it’s clear this war sent the continent on an even darker path. The fact this all happened again a few decades later - despite how destructive the first war was - shows you how much of an awful mistake it was with long lasting consequences. They called it “the war to end all wars” - except it achieved the exact opposite.

[@starlitnight6982]

@@smftrsddvjiou6443 unfortunately you are right :(

[@Whiterun_Gaurd]

And a totally useless war. Except for the ones that funded both sides.

[@nathansyoutubeaccount]

If I understand you correctly, you’re arguing that Austria and Germany more or less had to go to war because: for Germany, the Schlieffen plan was going to be rendered obsolete by the reformed Russian army and, for Austria, the improvement in the quality of the Serbian army/combined Balkan-Russia bloc threatened them existentially. War in 1914 thus being the last chance to save their current position let alone gain a strategic advantage over the Entente. Seeing how Austria fared against Serbia at the start of the war, that concern proved true. Seeing how Russia performed, overestimated by the Germans. I’m interested in you exploring France’s role.

[@LuisAldamiz]

France was in revenge mode vs Germany since the Franco-Prussian war. Being not anymore a first tier European or global power it had become increasingly dependent on British condescendence towards their last colonialist wave and thus the Ententè happened, because Britain was by tradicional policy bound to fight against any strong power in mainland Europe (in the past it had been Spain, later France but since German unification and rapid industrial growth it was Germany).

[@MajinOthinus]

I have commented this already independently under the video, but it fits here as well: One should also not ignore an incredibly important fact when accounting for Germany's position on a long war: The Haber-Bosch process was only technically realized in 1913 for the first time and only through a gigantic industrial and monetary effort implemented at scale at the very end of 1914. Without this process, there was essentially no way to produce large amounts of nitre, which was necessary for just about any explosive. Nitre had to be imported from overseas in large quantities and could easily be cut off by a combined French-British naval blockade (as happened in real life). Had the war started at any point before 1914, the central powers would have run out of ammunition within 6-10 months. In other words, all central powers planning needed to achieve victory within that time frame or face defeat. This is the reason why a Russia first plan was not even considered after 1912; defeating Russia would have taken way too long and even if achieved would still have meant no ammunition being left to defeat the French. Defeating France quickly at the start of the war meanwhile would have made a British blockade almost infeasible, considering it now would have had to block French ports as well. Without fore knowledge of the successful scale implementation of the Haber-Bosch process, there was absolutely no alternative to the Schlieffenplan in essence, only in concrete implementation. If the Schlieffenplan became unviable, all roads would have led to defeat.

[@maxn.7234]

​@@MajinOthinusThese small elements of history are rarely recognized or discussed.

[@nirfz]

I would argue that the way austria-hungary fared against serbia is somewhat comparable as how the french and british fared against the germans at the start of WW2: Serbia had more experience in recent military conflict due to the balkan wars. The last hostile actions austria-hungary had been in were skirmishes during the initial occupation of Bosnia.* So recent fighting experience was (and is) superior to size of army. The germans in WW2 had experience due to the attack on poland. (and before that even at the annexation of austria, the german army looked very carefully at what did not work in getting their military there and improoved on that. Same with the attack on poland) And thus the british and french (yes the french commanding generals bahaviour was a debacle in itself too) lacked the experience and readjustement the germans already had gone through. * which they didn't just decide on doing, but was an outcome of the congress of Berlin and so a diplomatic agreed on thing to not start a war with russia or serbia. And the actual annexation later was a diplomatic quickdraw due to something the russian foreign minister said, not expecting the austrians to act so quickly on it. He became an austrophob for the rest of his life due to that.

[@warlordofbritannia]

That’s pretty much how German and Austrian leadership saw things, yeah.

[@briantarigan7685]

The rise of Russian economy, the success of Stolypin's reforms and the great rearnament program of Russian armies in the prelude to WW1 is something that is rarely mentioned in popular discussion about the cause of WW1, even before watching this video i already know for quite some time now that German Military Circle at that time thought that the Russian army would be strategically invicible for them if their great rearnament program goes uninterupted until 1917, Schliefen plan itself being deviced to knock France out of the war as quick as possible like 1870 so Germany can focused on the prospect of any long war with Russia

[@LuisAldamiz]

Good point but Russia was still way behind other European or global (USA) economies in terms of industrialization, it would not really move forward until the Stalin period in fact. On the other hand Germany had surpassed Britain as main global industrial producer, much as Chinas has now surpassed the USA.

[@justinsutton5005]

​@@LuisAldamiz The tsarist was the fastest growing economy on the planet. It's somewhat likely that Russia would be stronger without the years of civilnwar

[@comradekapibarchik7997]

@@LuisAldamizYes, Russia was indeed behind USA and Western Europe in terms of industrialisation. However, they were actively closing the gap, having the fastest growing economy amongst the European Great Powers immediately prior to WW1 (the lower base ofc being a factor). You can read about it here: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrialization_in_the_Russian_Empire. And about your comment on Stalin, obviously Russia couldn’t really develop an industry during and immediately after its Civil War, which lead to unspeakable destruction across the country.

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@comradekapibarchik7997 - Interesting data. Taken on its own it would suggest that Russia was on the road to become a superpower, revolution or no revolution. I'm not so sure but maybe you're right. I concur that the pre-Stalin period was not very conductive to massive development, rather "survival" was sought after with Lenin's NEP. But in any case it was under Stalin and the full socialism when Russia or rather the overall USSR fully industrialized, something still going on in the days of Khrushev (when the USSR was the first Earthling country in space) but not so much under Brezhnev, when it stagnated, probably because the system was adapted to "authoritarian" Fordist Capitalism rather than to "diffuse" Toyotist Capitalism (and Brezhnev was radically agains the necessary reforms). I digress anyhow.

[@BlackGateofMordor]

@@LuisAldamiz It's important to remember that it's all about perception. The German military were probably wrong that the Russian army would be too strong to overcome by 1917 without a war and that Russian industrialisation was a lot further behind western Europe than they thought, but it's the fear of it happening that caused the war.

[@MajinOthinus]

One should also not ignore an incredibly important fact when accounting for Germany's position on a long war: The Haber-Bosch process was only technically realized in 1913 for the first time and only through a gigantic industrial and monetary effort implemented at scale in 1914. Without this process, there was essentially no way to produce large amounts of nitre, which was necessary for just about any explosive. Nitre had to be imported from overseas in large quantities and could easily be cut off by a combined French-British naval blockade (as happened in real life). Had the war started at any point before 1914, the central powers would have run out of ammunition within 6-10 months. In other words, all central powers planning needed to achieve victory within that time frame or face defeat. This is the reason why a Russia first plan was not even considered after 1912; defeating Russia would have taken way too long and even if achieved would still have meant no ammunition being left to defeat the French. Defeating France quickly at the start of the war meanwhile would have made a British blockade almost infeasible, considering it now would have had to block French ports as well.

[@1wun1]

Over a century later and the same material shortage would still happen.

[@MajinOthinus]

@@1wun1 No. This resource is no longer relevant as the Germans solved that particular problem in 1914. It hasn't been relevant since.

[@aaronjones8905]

What I find so unique is that the World Wars so entirely scarred the minds of the West that the entire idea of expanding state borders by force was done away with. I find myself wholly incapable of relating to the leaders of this time period who could countenance a bit of war here or there for the sake of national honor or borderlands.

[@terencefranks1688]

those 2 world wars & the incredibly huge mass slaughter which prevailed,later proved to be the downfall of the white European races,leading up to what we see today,the forthcoming extinction of the white race & western culture,via the medium of mass 3rd world migration into Europe,changing it's demography forever ....

[@Colonel-Sigma]

We all really did get alienated to the old ways huh? While I do agree that the actions of the axis powers during wwii were horrific, I find they are often also demonized for expansions policies. But their biggest mistake in doing so was really just that they were the last to evolve into "non-conquering" nations. It's often said that Germany and Japan are warrior cultures, as if this is in contrast to the west. Meanwhile Britain, France, and Russia have always maintained the largest militaries and most expansionist foreign policy until that point. Japan's attempt to expand in the 30's was no different than what Britain had always done, they were just late to the party. Not that they weren't horrible, but acting as though the west has always been peaceful is a downright unrealistic and clownish view.

[@terencefranks1688]

@@Colonel-Sigma abssolutely true - the British empire alone was probably responsible for the deaths of more people than those inflicted by the axis powers. i sometimes wonder what life might have been like,had the axis powers prevailed in WW2 - i doubt that we would have seen 3rd world invaders arriving on rubber boats,on almost any day of the week !

[@ВладиславВладислав-и4ю]

So, West just self-castrated

[@matthewteal2629]

@@Colonel-Sigmawhile there Holocaust was certainly one of the most vile, unique, and horrifying events to happen in this world, the pre-Holocaust rhetoric used by Germany against non-German populations in Europe wasn’t much different to the Western rhetoric against the people of its colonial possessions. It’s true that the European powers had slowed border expansion on mainland Europe, but this isn’t true at all for their colonial policies. One could look at Germany’s expansionist WW2 policies in light of colonialism and realize that they treated the Russians and Polish like the British did the Egyptians and Chinese. Subjugation of people is not a new tactic but was unfortunately perfected by the Germans. From a larger perspective, the Holocaust horrified Western Europe after some time had passed, which really makes you wonder if there are any other issues with Western European dominance. Neocolonialism still exists today with France having a pseudo-empire in Africa and many of the European nations still exert power over the Global south through economic exploitation, while they also bemoan the Palestine conflict and support Israel. In 20 years time we’ll probably see a plethora of books and movies about how terrible this conflict was and how to never allow it to happen again, all while Western Europe continues the exploitation of non-Europeans, in perpetuity. Global suffering continues where believed European superiority exists.

[@jakubtomas4557]

I rarely comment under videos, but I must state that I am positively surprised by this video essay. You are in quite a short time clearly summarizing key points relevant to the discussion of the ignition of WWI. You are discussing the need of much needed nuance in this field of study and you are also thinking in metaterms, that are very - and I mean very - important for this kind of study (e.g.: "it is important not what we think, but what the German high command was thinking"). Your well structured arguments supported by sources are great. This video brings ibteresting and needed viewpoint into WWI discussion and I think it achieves even some degree of academic-grade discussion. Keep up the great work!

[@dwarvenminer3329]

I like your willingness to admit your changes in opinion when it comes to interpreting your historical sources. Most of the time history channels will usually state something plainly without going in the nuances of interpreting correspondence and the opinions of the people that defined foreign policy.

[@SamC-bg6vn]

BABE…. WAKE UP

[@flop-tk1se]

you don’t have a babe be honest

[@Fakeslimshady]

@@flop-tk1se 😢

[@thesupercactus6401]

@@flop-tk1se Don't talk to my boyfriend like that

[@freddysw]

@@thesupercactus6401 He said I was the only one!

[@christopherevans2445]

Babe keep the kids quite. I'm trying to watch Old Britannia on my phone.

[@noaccount4]

Damn man that is some next level Thucydean nightmare. Imagine being forced into a war you think you can't win in a last ditch bid to avoid a war you know you won't win. I wonder what the diplomatic theatre of Europe would have looked like if no great war had occurred and the strategic realities of Europe were shaken up by the incredible economic eclipsing of Europe by the United States of America

[@brickingle3984]

In many ways this situation was caused almost entirely by Wilhelm II abandoning the bismarkian policy of keeping France and Russia divided

[@Wanderer628]

That eclipse wouldnt have taken place like it had in reality. The circumstances for America eclipsing Europe economically were a combination of Europe being near annihalated by two world wars and America taking advanatage of the situation to profit and gain influence. Without those two wars, either America growing larger would have been delayed by decades if not half a centruy or wouldnt have happened at all.

[@noaccount4]

@@Wanderer628 I wouldn't be that pessimistic. WWI accelerated America's rise, but it didn't create it. By the 1900s America had already surpassed the economy of the British Empire and was beginning to out-compete Britain in countries which were traditionally under the British sphere of influence (as in South America) or most alarmingly, even in countries that were a part of the British Empire like Canada. Even in Britain itself, American goods were outcompeting British goods, and there were calls to raise protectionist tariffs. The most significant change from the lack of any WWI, is that the pound sterling would probably still be the world reserve currency. But all the factors which made the US so competitive - vast natural resources, huge free, well-educated population, strong commercial law, availability of capital (including from British and European investors!), are all things which made the USA economically robust and powerful. Even without the bankruptcy of the European states, the USA was getting STRONG In 1890 Britain had an urban population of 11.2M people. USA 9.6M, Germany 5.6M, France 4.5M and Russia 4.3M In 1900 USA had an urban population of 14.2M people, Britain 13.5M, Germany 8.7M, Russia 6.6M, France 5.2M and Japan 3.8M. In 1910 USA had an urban population of 20.3M people, Britain 15.3M, Germany 12.9M, Russia 10.2M, Japan 5.8M and France 5.2M. The same trend is true, whether you look at population size, GDP growth, per capita levels of industrialistion iron/steel output e.t.c. (source: the rise and fall of the great powers, p.256). In 1890 the USA was manufacturing 36% of the world's steel, by 1910 it was manufacturing 47%. If the great war hadn't started - the USA would have likely continued growing to the point where its industrial output exceeded all of the European powers combined. That would surely forecast a comfortable future, even without their competition immolating itself in the fires of war.

[@NicolasHaufe]

​@@brickingle3984this is a misconception an alliance with russia and Austria at Same was Impossible

[@ayhan4472]

​@brickingle3984 Bismarck created an empire only he could have kept alive. Without him, germans had to win a major war in order to secure their place in europa. They couldn't and now we all have to speak this language

[@Idk-ys7rt]

This channel is way too underrated.

[@Littlemilkjug533]

Indeed

[@bigmukka]

One of KZbin's best-kept secrets

[@historiacontaco]

Agreed

[@rkeykey]

I wish there were content like this for other countries

[@maynardburger]

The level of analysis here is terrible, despite how well researched and intelligent-*sounding* it is. There was never any need for Germany to agree to defend Austria-Hungary at all. They were just being petty and nationalistic and insecure. Germany simply had to say NO and WW1 would have literally never happened and Austria-Hungary would have fallen apart is did anyways and millions of people would have lived, and Germany might even have improved its relations with England/France/Russia as a result.

[@rainbowappleslice]

I think this also gives a good understanding of just how unwilling old empires could be at as he said in the video, 'swallow their pride' and concede/backdown. Sometimes you just can't do anything about the situation you find yourself in and you have to accept that fact before desperation, ignorance or something similar leads to the destruction of what you are trying to protect. it's an oversimplification but sort of inevitable in a world so obsessed with showing strength and the international image of the nation.

[@maynardburger]

WW1 literally could have been avoided if Germany said "No". Germany caused WW1 by saying "Yes". They knew all the consequences and only said "Yes" because they thought they could win.

[@maxpower3990]

Except that if you “swallow your pride” and back down other nations will see that as weakness and push you for more in the future. Some times your options are a bad situation now or a worse one tomorrow.

[@rainbowappleslice]

@@maxpower3990 other nations might see it as weakness, but in the case of a nation like Germany they are more than equipped to show that it’s not weakness and instead pragmatism. For nations like Austria-Hungary though, it would absolutely be weakness they can’t back up but I can’t exactly see any worse scenario than throwing yourself into a war that ends up destroying your entire nation.

[@Sean-p3o]

America can’t swallow its pride easily either Vietnam 10 plus years Iraq still there Afghanistan 20 yrs It’s losing its proxy war against Russia

[@antoinesilva1527]

@@rainbowappleslice I believe that for A-H, the Emperor was getting too old to handle this kind of crisis, the admins and military leaders were far from the likes of Metternich, Schwarzenberg, Karl, Radetzky, etc., and there was, at that point, too little commitment to reforms (particularly in terms of funding, which was overcomplicated due to the dual monarchy system).

[@danever159]

I suggest a video on the morocco crisis and perhaps the pov of the maratha confederation

[@_Ultima_]

I would like to see a longer economic history and situation for other countries, for example Italy. In the same way as you did for Britain and the USA

[@blockboygames5956]

What a wonderful video. Thank you for the perspective! Cheers from Australia. :)

[@nygothuey6607]

Your videos exploring the historical geopolitical reality in Europe are so well done. Thank you.

[@Alfonzridesagain]

Amused that this has been slapped with a context note. Are the powers that be really worried about the impact of revisionist diplomatic history on KZbin?

[@ceoofperc5353]

misinformation is constant and neverending, i'd rather have them on videos that don't need them then none at all imo

[@Mazurking]

What did that note say?

[@danielfield2570]

Always a good day when OB uploads

[@finn0h]

Well, possibly. But the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort not to have a war.

[@olefredrikskjegstad5972]

"It was BOLLOCKS"

[@nirfz]

"And i thought it was because someone shot an ostrich..." Fun fact: the feather on Franz Ferdinands hat was an ostrich feather!

[@WatchmyPlaylist.]

under rule of international bankers globally. for over 100 years. germany solved that problem in 1933 and the globalists didnt like that.

[@AverageWagie2024]

I've always loved history. The battle of Hastings, Henry 8th and his six knives

[@stoobydootoo4098]

​@nirfz It was shot by an archer, because he was hungry.

[@nemanjasimic4423]

Great video! I hope one the next ones would be on Austro-Serbian relations from 1878 to 1914. You could get all the juicy topics: the Treaty of Berlin and subsequent occupation of Bosnia (1878), the Austro-Serbian Convention (1881), the bloody end to the dynastic wars in Serbia (1903), the Annexation Crisis (1908), as well as good ol' Balkan Wars (1912-13). Also, you could cover the position of South Slavs in the Monarchy in this period. It would reveal a lot that would fulfill the story started in this video. One more thing: Franz Ferdinand tend to be re-interpreted as a war-feaful reformer. But his idea of a Trilater Union had a specific identity (Croatia-orientated instead of Yugoslav- or pan-Slavic one) and reasons (Franz was notoriously on bad terms with the Hungarians and saw the Austro-Hungarian settlement as a major hindrance for the Monarchy).

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

They didn't start the war alone, but together with Austria! They started this war together because they believed they would gain territory through victories. The Bosnian Serb Gavrilo Princip was a resistance fighter who fought a completely justified resistance against the occupiers of his homeland! I would have done the same if this next prospective dictator had shown up in occupied Poland. The reason for that war was not because the Bosnian Serb resistance fighters Gavrilo Princip assassinated the prospective coming dictatorial monarch Franz Ferdinand. But this assassination wasn't enough for the Austrians as a reason for war. Because Serbia's involvement in the assassination was not proven in 1914. The Serbs also actually fulfilled almost the entire ultimatum of the Austrians, which was actually considered impossible to fulfill. That's why the German monarch Wilhelm II. himself determined that the Austrians actually had no reason for war against Serbia. That's why the Austrians looked for a reason. The message of an armed banter, which had been triggered by the shelling of Austrian troops against Serbian steamers near Temes Kubin on the Danube, was then the reason that was looking for. So the Srbs were accused of starting hostilities. The armed banter was then exaggerated into a battle and Interpreted as an actual opening of the fighting by Serbia and the alleged battle was expressly mentioned as a reason for war in the declaration of war by Austrian monarch Franz Joseph. At the latest on July 28 1914, and in any case before the declaration of war was sent, it was announced that this alleged battle was a hoax. Nevertheless, Austria attacked Serbia without reason for war and the Germans backed the Austrians. Which is why they are also responsible for this war. Because without this backing, Austria would not have dared to attack Serbia, which was allied with Russia. The Germans also wanted absolutely to find a reason for war! The aircraft of Nuremberg was then the reason that they looking for! The aircraft of Nuremberg refers to a media hoax in which one or several French aircraft allegedly dropped bombs near Nuremberg, Germany on August 2, 1914, only one day prior to Germany's declaration of war on France. The story seems to have suited the General Staff's agenda. On August 2 the Bavarian military plenipotentiary in Berlin reported to Munich: "Welcoming news of a bombing at Nuremberg by French aircraft has arrived from our III. Army Command. Without even waiting for a diplomatic act the Ministry of War and the General Staff now have declared France an enemy." By the way they even simply raided Belgium in 1914 without pretext! In summary explained! This is how one behaves when one wants war! One constructs reasons for war.

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

@@GreatPolishWingedHussars Never read so much bullshit pro-Entente propaganda. Princip was a terrorist and Serbia failed to deport all of the terrorists living in Serbia to Austria-Hungary.

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

@@TheAustrianAnimations87 No, I am not a member of the Entente! :) By the way, Gavrilo Princip was a freedom fighter who fought against dictatorial occupiers of his country. There were no terrorists in Serbia that Serbia could have deported. In addition, Serbia did not have to cooperate in any way with the Austrian occupiers of the homelands of Serbs, Bosniaks, Slovenians and Croats. These were the enemies of the Yugoslavs who were fought by the southern Slavs. One of the few advantages of this war was that because of this war, this oppressive monarchy collapsed and the oppressed nations were able to free themselves because of this war. This monarchy was also correctly called the prison of the nations! By the way, vulgarity is no substitute for logical and good counterarguments!

[@Catarigue]

Finally a new video by the legendary Old Britannia!!!✨️✨️✨️

[@YarPirates-vy7iv]

You mean another old video by New Brittania?

[@generaltom6850]

@@YarPirates-vy7iv His WW1 videos are the best, plus this isn’t an old video. It’s a different take on a historical subject that he already talked about once

[@YarPirates-vy7iv]

@@generaltom6850 I love his videos. I'm just messing with the words, word play as it were, for fun.

[@captainez4387]

I’ve always absolutely loved the aesthetic of the maps in these videos

[@GnomaPhobic]

Very good explanatory video. Understanding history isn't just about knowing the causal sequence of events; you have to understand the perspectives of the people - and especially the decision makers - of the time in question.

[@robertewing3114]

I think you'll find misunderstanding history is rather more popular. Academically speaking we would all pursue just perspectives if given half a chance, but politically speaking the half must be denied. Academically speaking the academics only need half the chance to write good history, but they often fail, and bad history is often better received. History inevitably generates thought, and thought control works best when no new thoughts are being generated, so history is the hot potatoe. For example, an academic wrote Franz Ferdinands fateful trip to Sarajevo. That takes the heat off the decision to send him there. Now put the heat on - Franz Ferdinands fatal trip to Sarajevo. Rather than accept any responsibility for the mistake, the government decided on another mistake, war. And two wrongs, even by the same person, dont make a right. Serbia was blamed entirely... Indeed a wrong turn may be fateful but Ferdinand did not turn the car, so how does that word apply to him? Historian Medlicott wrote of Neville Chamberlain, he would have done better to stay at home. Those words apply to Ferdinand, but they pop up concerning the next war as meant part of the tragedy. The sequence of events is nothing in those terms, because 1914 becomes 1938. And you will find people moving 1938 to recent times, with Ukraine starring as Czechoslovakia. You wrote causal but most people choose casual, the casual sequence of events, the fateful sequence of events, all thought controlled. Chamberlain was better than that, and anything is better than that. History could teach us all to be better, but more than half a chance would be required, and few people give others that much.

[@vishackvapricorn3426]

Let me grab my popcorn, Old Britannia has just posted.

[@Catarigue]

🍿

[@Terric90]

old britannia was envious of germany

[@stooge_mobile]

Fantastic video, hopefully you get a bunch more exposure. This doesn't suffer at all from focusing on a single factor. You focus on too much, you get lost in the weeds. This is concise, direct, and deliberates on the important stuff. Well done!

[@garrettallen7427]

This video is a great insight into the underlying and systemic causes of WW1 and I felt like it gave a very good explanation of the situation the Germans and Austrians felt they were in! Good job!

[@maynardburger]

I hate how people are so easily persuaded by terrible analysis just cuz it sounds smart. There's this huge effort nowadays to absolve Germany of their 100% fault in causing WW1 and it's fucking insane. So many logical leaps here are not covered, like WHY Germany had to support Austria-Hungary in their dumbshit imperialist agenda. All they had to do was say, "We dont support you in this" and WW1 would have literally have never happened. It genuinely would have been that simple.

[@jacobtrowbridge1811]

If I might offer a topic suggestion, there's an area of this period which has vexed me for some time now - what was Vienna's plan, long-term? Previously, we [read: you] have already discussed the diplomatic catch-22 that Austria-Hungary found herself (herselves?) in, caught between the overlapping matrices of Russian territorial ambitions, Ottoman weakness, friendliness between the Austrian and Russian political systems, and the complex influences from Whitehall and Wilhelmstraße. Tracking the diplomatic movements made by Vienna in this period often feels as though Austria is caught playing two tennis matches at once, from opposite directions - darting back and forth to narrowly block a shot, just to buy enough time to lurch back and block another one coming from behind - with her getting more and more flustered as time goes on. But I've never gotten a comprehensive answer as to what her plan was in the long-term, how Austria-Hungary planned to survive and reorient herself. Did they want to build a federation, mollify their ethnic tensions? Did they want to reposition themselves at the centre of European diplomacy again? Force the Russians and Turks from the Balkans to close up the gaping hole in her armour? Much has been said of the almost romcom shenanigans Austria pulled to stay afloat, but how did they pan to pull themselves up from the water?

[@derantorkiarig4592]

As far as I'm aware, they had no grand plan; at least nothing which was seriously close to being implemented. There was the idea of a form of Danubian Federation, which would have extended similar status as Hungary had in the dual monarchy to a newly formed Yugoslav Kingdom, turning the Dual Monarchy into a Triple Monarchy. But Austria was much more concerned with the immediate threats posed to it; there was, in essence, no point to doing long term planning as they believed that they wouldn't survive the short term. Ironically, they only didn't survive the short term because they started a war thinking they couldn't. Reading Clarke, one gets the impression that Austria believed itself to be on a crossroad of history: they thought they could either make one final attempt to reclaim their status as a great power, or sink into oblivion. If they allowed Serbia to get away with the assassination of Prince Ferdinand, they would forego any option to control the Balkans; they would probably have to give up Bosnia; they would, eventually, be forced into an armed conflict with Russia unless they backed down and just gave up on their own. The internal divisions of the Dual Monarchy also meant that there was an incentive to go on an external adventure to hopefully unite the country in the fight against a common enemy. This actually worked, remarkably! Despite how quickly the Empire fell apart in 1918, there was no insubordination or earnest separatism before the defeat of the country was imminent. The big irony of history is that, by believing itself to be on the precipice of extinction, Austria-Hungary not only caused its own destruction, it would also prove to the Germans that their own fears of eradication were not unfounded - something which greatly increased the willingness to seek a "Schicksalskampf", a fated battle, or battle for their fate, in WW2. Already in WW1, Germany believed that it must necessarily be eclipsed by Russia; that a final clash for dominance between Germanic and Slavic culture was imminent, and that they would lose the longer they delayed. After WW1, seeing how weak Russia still was, but with the geopolitical situation basically unchanged, one final effort was made to decide Germany's place on the world stage by a final conflict. It was to either win or perish; of course, they did in the end, perish, precluding any participation of Germany as a defining actor on the world stage ever again. By imagining themselves to be standing on the precipice of a deep chasm, they conjured up the inescapable hole into which they fell.

[@fredrickfraser1659]

One thing I find interesting about this is that had the war started later, there’s a good chance that the British would have aligned themselves with the German Empire due to fears of Russian modernization and power. This is because British policy throughout the last century had been to prevent any of the other European powers from becoming hegemonic and to keep the powers divided and competing against each other and away from British colonial ambitions. Now in 1914 this, along with the invasion of Belgium, led Britain to declare war on Germany due to its sheer military power, dominating influence, and the naval arms race, but had the war started in 1918 we might have seen a completely different outcome. For one thing with Russia modernization, as mentioned in the video, the Schlieffen plan would not have been implemented, and a more defensive approach would have been taken to help defend from the massive and rapid onslaught of modernized Russian forces. In addition to this, with modernization completed, Britain would be far more worried about Russian hegemony, military might, ambitions in Central Asia, and, most worrying of all, naval buildup and control of Constantinople. These combined with a longer period of Anglo-German Detente could very likely flip British opinion towards the Central Powers against the Entente and in particular Russia.

[@hanneswiggenhorn2023]

Honestly I'm not too sure about British realignment and it probably would have to do with fleet ambitions. Like, if Russia would have signed limiting naval contracts and would show no ambitions for oversee expansion, I think the British might have preferred them over the Germans, with which the, already had a naval arms race

[@cumcumson5661]

@@hanneswiggenhorn2023That was my first thought as well, but due to the massive land borders of the Russian Empire it would only take one Invasion into one of several countries to border British colonial holdings. Russia didnt need a navy to rip apart the British empire, they were basically neighbours.

[@DerAptrgangr]

Honestly, even a less ambitious Schlieffen Plan would've kept Britain out. Everyone knew about Germany's plans to attack through Belgium - hell, France had their own plans of attacking Germany through Belgium. Shortly before the war broke out, Britain concluded that they did not have a specific legal obligation to protect Belgian neutrality. The problem was that Germany sent Belgium a letter basically saying "hey, we're going to use you for our way, but we're but trying to conquer you, so if you're cool about it, we'll make it worth your while" which is an affront to national dignity that Belgium can't accept and that made Germany look real bad. Plus, Germany didn't just seize Southern Belgian rail lines and stations as everyone assumed they would. They occupied the whole country. Those two factors pushed Britain into the war when without them, Britain would've probably just *tsk tsk*ed, and went back to tea.

[@hanneswiggenhorn2023]

@@DerAptrgangr I personally wouldn't be too sure, because Britain wasn't too happy about Germanys fleet ambitions, and if France would be hit too badly, I would imagine Britain intervening to prevent a German takeover of the French navy, because that could be a serious threat for British naval dominance and could make future things like blockades hard to impossible

[@jacobhollback2879]

@@hanneswiggenhorn2023 The tragic irony of your fleet comment is that I recently learned that Wilhelm was enamoured with the British Empire (he was also 12th in line for the throne and would have become William the Fifth I think) and wanted to model Germany after it. He was a huge fan boy looking for Britain's approval. He thought the best way to do that was demonstrate what a strong country Germany could be. And the best way to show that to the British was... making a great fleet. Which of course the British saw as a threat instead. The entire war is such a cruel joke.

[@davidcunningham2074]

the most convincing and well researched- though far from the longest- analysis of why it started i have heard.

[@Lindaegan97]

I'm rather torn on these short videos of yours - on the one hand it means we get more content, but on the other it means I can't sit back with a couple beers and enjoy an hour long analysis on diplomatic history. But I can hardly complain, can I?

[@kulloth]

You're the only KZbinr whose content I view immediately after being notified. Your history videos are hands-down better than anything I've seen on TV. I applaud you! A small nitpick: You should probably use the en-dash "-" and not a hyphen "-" in things like "Anglo-Russian Convention". Traditionally, there is a subtle difference in meaning, the former meaning "a convention of England and Russia" and the latter "the convention of 'Anglo-Russia'".

[@SaltPepperEconomics]

I do find it fascinating how all wars are taught as if they are inevitable, and we forget that for the people living in the days before the war there was always severe uncertainty as to whether it would happen or not. As what happened with Ukraine in recent memory. But 40 years from now it will be taught as if it was an inevitable certainty

[@TheGuby123]

Hindsight is 20/20. NATO expansion did not need to happen.

[@azlanadil3646]

@@TheGuby123 The Russian invasion of Chechnya, Georgia, and now Ukraine beg to differ. You can’t invade half your neighbours, then expect the other half to sit around idly.

[@justachannel8600]

As a German I would say the writing was on the wall. First the American started to squabble over Ukraine (Democrats claimed Trump was Putins puppet, Trump claimed Democrats were doing shady stuff in Ukraine). Then our own government started blaming Russia for COVID protests. Of course, I didn't realize it at the time, but I remember finding the absurd accusations rather ... weird. Was it inevitable? I don't think so, but it has been brewing a long time (and probably even long before Trump).

[@TheGuby123]

@@justachannel8600 in 2013 the Americans basically overthrew a democratically elected Ukrainian president who was pro Russia. The Americans have been meddling in the area for sure.

[@justachannel8600]

@@TheGuby123 I'm mostly of the opinion "it takes two to tango" on that matter. Putin did several invasions but for that matter so did the US. I'm not really sure if the pro-Russian government was less manipulated. What disappoints me is seeing how manipulated we are and how many people are happily playing along.

[@astrolonim2032]

I love this channel! However, if you read these comments: please check out Terence Zuber’s work on the Schlieffen Plan. He believes it never existed in the way it is now conceived. I’m not so sure that it never existed, but I certainly think it is a more complex issue than “as everyone knows, 7/8 of germany’s army was supposed to go west.”

[@OldBritannia]

Thank you. I know, I know, I do actually cite zuber at the end if you check. His work is profound, but come on, he’s hardly uncontroversial. I probably should have mentioned it because it does impact how pre-war Germany is studied, but it’s such a rabbit hole that I don’t know if I could include it in this without getting side tracked.

[@WagesOfDestruction]

there was definitely, despite Zuber's claim, something like the Schlieffen Plain.

[@ramodamo10]

@@OldBritannia Having read and re-read Zuber's book, I'll agree that his thesis is controversial, but I do love the fact that, despite this, his contribution to the military history of WW1 is "has anybody actually bothered to study the German war plans and war games themselves, rather than just rely heavily on Gerhard Ritter's book?". In any case, this video - as well as your other videos with Salisbury in it - is a pleasure to watch.

[@johnphipps4105]

​@@OldBritanniaHave you ever heard of Donoso Cortes? From what I understand he predicted the coming of ww1 all the way back in 1849. Take care and God bless

[@alanpennie8013]

​​@@OldBritannia I would suggest just not use the dread words *Schlieffen Plan*. It's entirely uncontroversial to say something like *German plan to deploy the bulk of their army against Belgium in the hope of winning a quick victory in The West*.

[@Quantum-1157]

Well actually 2 major factors that are often swept under the rug by the victors (Britain and France): 1. Britain and France’s huge insecurities in The aftermath of German Unification in 1870s and its rapid industrialization. 2. Colonial rivalries.

[@rick3461]

I love stumbling on gems like this channel! Great video.

[@trauko1388]

Just one detail, the CPs held their side of the bargain with the Russians in 1909, they had always been willing to support the Russians on the matter of the straits... only that their new BRITISH "allies" were not so inclined, so the Russians consented on Bosnia in excahnge for the straits issue, only for diplomatic defeat to come from an unexpected side. ...aaaaand then blamed the Austrians.

[@yellowwasprakija2869]

The issue was that the German sphere and Slavic sphere were pitted against each other instead of being natural allies against the Anglo-Franco sphere

[@Tnpt_studios]

Is it just me, or is something different? In all seriousness, love the new style!

[@generaltom6850]

Its less professional and stoic than his other videos. Plus the vocabulary is more informal.

[@perfectblindguy]

Germany did not start WW1. It was started by Austria. In fact, Wilhelm tried to stop the war once he realized that Austria was actually going to war with Serbia.

[@maynardburger]

WW1 would have never happened if Germany didn't agree to ally with Austria-Hungary, ffs. How can you people suggest otherwise? Any other war would never been a 'world war' at all. Germany was the one who made plans to invade France and fight Russia and everything. They absolutely made their decision to start a giant war. It's unbelievable how many people try and argue otherwise.

[@ACR909]

They still committed to war in the end, just because Austria begun the first domino doesn't mean Germany didn't choose to go to war - essentially they were happy to start in 1914, because had they not been, they wouldn't have joined Austria and invaded Belgium to assault France. Also German actions on the east were defensive at first, but they were also hyper aggressive there as the war went on.

[@DerAptrgangr]

​@@ACR909all of those things are different than "starting" the war. And France and Russia started the war.

[@ACR909]

@@DerAptrgangr Austria started the first military action so idk what you're talking about. It was the German willingness to back Austrias was against Serbia (and therefore Russia) that begun the war.

[@JUAN_OLIVIER]

@@ACR909 - By your own logic is was Russias willingness to back Serbia that begun the war. Austria had a valid reason to attack Serbia. Russia caused the war between Germany and Russia while France and the UK caused a world war by attacking Germany.

[@nightdragonx123]

Two reasons why youre an amazing KZbin Historian; 1. Your talent for explaining diplomatic History is matched by very few on this platform while also using great visuals in your maps and soloets of whomever the subject is on. 2. They have rewatchability as you might miss something on the first, even second watch

[@intentionaloffside8934]

The tensions were already there . The assassination was just the fuse that lit the power keg.

[@982-o4e]

imagine its an irish person killing the british prince, and our history blames the french for starting the war because they attacked the english strait to by pass the ocean

[@lempereurcremeux3493]

"and our history blames the french for giving britain the green light to invade ireland and kill a quarter of its population in the occupation, while itself fighting for far bigger war aims."

[@wyatttyson7737]

Its far worse that. Imagine if an Irish Person killed the British Prince, then France takes the blame for war after Germany sent troops to west waving “we are marching on Paris” flags.

[@meltedicecreamsandwich]

@@lempereurcremeux3493 Germany was literally just being a good ally supporting Austria. The fuck did you want them to do? Abandon their greatest ally and be alone? China was in a state of disarray, America was doing isolation, any country in South America wouldn't do shit for Germany, Japan was too far away and was busy building an empire, France wanted revenge, Britain went against any of the strongest powers in europe which was germany at the time. They literally only had 3 viable friend options, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Russia. Russia and Austria Hungary didnt get along taking russia out, Italy was explained in this video , all that was left was Austria-Hungary. Again what did you want them to do? Do nothing and get invaded by the Entente when they grew strong enough?

[@kubhlaikhan2015]

@@lempereurcremeux3493 pure nonsense

[@lempereurcremeux3493]

@@kubhlaikhan2015 Wanna cry about it?

[@gregorywhite3946]

Great video.

[@shadowplayz2432]

OLD BRITANNIA POST A VIDEO DROP EVERYTHING!

[@wildfiregaming2717]

Another Old Britannia Banger 🔥🔥🔥

[@davidbrunnerchemeng]

Excellent as always

[@DanDan-ow7nl]

Excellent points-appreciate the deeper dive on starting the war and Italian inaction preventing German victory

[@AndDiracisHisProphet]

0:09 no, it was because a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry.

[@Levit7]

funny enough, Austria in german is Österreich

[@joemiller9931]

@@Levit7 *German

[@thomasgangl8990]

Sound thinking and reasoning, I must say. Not another armchair historian on KZbin. I also liked a lot that you included your sources at the end. This is how history works as a science.

[@alansmithee8831]

After recovering from the shock of a start pre midnight, I thought I was listening to a modern version of AJP Taylor "How Wars Begin". Then I saw the credits. As interesting and entertaining as what I recall from AJP. Years back I mentioned that series and the work colleague I sat next to for years, explained how he was waiting for someone on a visit to the university where AJP was and was dragged into playing a game of chess by the historian.

[@TheIrishvolunteer]

Hey, I recently discovered your channel and I would love to just applaud you on the fine work you are doing. Your videos are so informative but yet concise! I am now binge-watching my way through your channel. Please consider one day doing a video on the politics of the, 1798 Rebellion, 1916 Rising, Irish war of Independence, or the new Irish free State/Republic. There is a lot to talk about if you were ever stuck for an idea!

[@CODRD]

What if instead of Germany alienating Russia in the late 1800s, they did the opposite especially after the Austrian-Prussain War? As far as I can tell, Germany had a choice of either befriending Austria-Hungary or Russia, but whoever they chose, the other would be allied to France?

[@NicolasHaufe]

Yep

[@nickmacarius3012]

This guy be spitting out dissertations at a rate university history professors can only dream of doing.

[@maynardburger]

This guy would be laughed out of any university. It only fools idiots like you who dont know better.

[@keineahnung7278]

Germany DIDN'T start the war!

[@Sabundy]

Then who did?

[@keineahnung7278]

@Sabundy that's not very clear. A Serbian killed the Austrian prince and his wife. That's why Austria attacked Serbia. Germany supported Austria because they were allies. And Serbia had its very own allies.

[@momotaro9727]

Great video as per usual, very infromative, Thank you you for expanding upon this topic :)

[@thespiritphoenix3798]

Yaaaaaas OldBritannia uploaded!!!!

[@Terric90]

Pssst, I tell you a secret: Old Britannia was extremely envious of german empire before WW1.

[@Schnitzelfox]

0:04 I would like to see your source for that claim.

[@georgelfc1235]

Fully, so much fake news about these days. People just make a video on a topic they’ve never even read a book on 🙄🙄🙄 /S

[@somaliopiummerchant7171]

ask america as a whole

[@gloverfox9135]

@@somaliopiummerchant7171lol cope

[@sn0wdon]

Great work, you nailed the shorter format.

[@georgios_5342]

Very well written and thought out video. Your strategic thought gives me new perspectives about historical and modern conflicts that I had never considered

[@Chris-ki6ui]

First? Just as I was getting up to clean I refresh my front page and this video is just released. I couldn't ask for a better timing.

[@ElHipokondriako]

It's been a while since I haven't enjoyed a history video this much.

[@Ratselmeister]

Germany did not start the war. Period.

[@mac2312]

Europa the Last Battle is a phenomenal documentary everyone should watch.

[@theblobfishes746]

Great video, I think you should do the other possible causes

[@bradical6019]

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).

[@unusualhistorian1336]

Great as always, keep it up!

[@jeffreymorrissey6064]

Great content with a lot of new information to me. And I have spent a long time studying WW1!

[@iron2684]

I just wanna say, the black ocean is kinda unsightly and i prefer the light blue ocean, still great video as usual tho!

[@ppalchinsky8301]

In addition to the sources used, I must recommend “The Origins of Major War” by Dale Copeland, who presents a detailed analysis of the reasons for the CP decision for war in 1914 based on behind the scenes revelations from telegrams and personal diary entries of politicians and military leaders in Berlin and Vienna during the July Crisis. Also presents details of the strategic issues, such as Russia’s Great Program goals for 1917, which played a large role in stoking German fears and influenced their calculus as suggested in the excellent video.

[@billyosullivan3192]

Belgium began conscription in 1913 and France extended conscription to 3 years in 1913.

[@OldBritannia]

True but the law would almost certainly have been revoked the following year. It also helped rather than hindered the Germans. Biggest own goal of the pre-war world by making plan XVII possible. Had the French and Belgians not lost their marbles for the first 4 weeks the Germans shouldn’t have got passed liege.

[@billyosullivan3192]

​@@OldBritanniaI didn't mention this as it likely wouldn't have been part of German calculations but France was also a year out from replacing those infamous blue coats and getting proper helmets. France was the first in ww1 to have all its troops have modern metal helmets. Can't help but think if the war started sooner either Germany would win quickly (unlikely imo) or Germany would be unable to continue the war due to industrial ammonia production only starting in 1913. They would run out of explosives And if the war started later I don't see Austria surviving the opening offensive. Even in our timeline Russia managed to destroy 45% of Austria's eastern front troops in under 3 weeks

[@dano4996]

​@@OldBritannia Plan XVII was more a diplomatic rather than millitary one which I concede, is quite strange. This plan was based on the bases to not touch Belgium (to not alienate Britain) and keeping Italy neutral (this aim has been eased by the 1902 secret neutrality treaty between France and Italy). Its offensive attitude in Alsace-Lorraine was due to political reasons back in home (as you mentioned yourself in some videos, Alsace-Lorraine was of prime importance to the French). It was quite inaccurate on how to carry out an attack in German hold Alsace Lorraine. The results were what the plan was bound to bring about : British entering into the war, Italian neutrality and the inability of breaking through Alsace Lorraine due to its inaccuracy. Therefore we can argue that even the XVII plan was a tactical defeat, it was a strategic victory because all the diplomatic aims of France were achieved which was a great step toward victory. I don't see how France could have had another plan given the circumstances of the pre war world such as the importance of dragging Britain into the war. the only thing that could be changed is the prediction of the invasion of Belgium, plan XVII took it as a possibility but the French military didn't think that it would be on such a large scale. We can argue that the reaction could have been better, true but it could have been so also for the Germans. All sides make mistake. As a French idiomatic says " with “ifs”, we could bottle Paris"

[@alanpennie8013]

Well put. French success absolutely depended on British support and Italian neutrality. It might be argued that the admittedly horrendous losses of the opening weeks were the result rather of superior German firepower than of any French blunder.

[@APZachariah]

I love the scholarly terms, the learned speech and cadence, and use of the word "squat."

[@opraiderman904]

It messed me up learning about ww1 in school because there was a popular band called Franz Ferdinand

[@TheBaleadaMan]

One day Old Britannia should make a history video completely out of his field of work of Britain and Europe and do a video on something super random like idk the Aztecs or Polynesians. Try to get as far away from Europe and talk about the geopolitical issues and questions of say Pre-Colombian Latin America or the atolls of the western pacific. Anyways love the videos and the quality is always sky high and improving! Your channel will one day get its recognition and flowers it deserves!

[@demondelaplace5161]

I know right? So many KZbinrs languish in their comfort zone. I follow Primitive Technology, and not once has he done any motor vehicle repair.

[@comedyreliefguy5112]

It'd be a good april fools video

[@WagesOfDestruction]

Germany was not the primary decision-maker to go into WWI; it was A-H, Serbia, and Russia. We need to analyse these people.

[@maynardburger]

Without Germany, WW1 doesn't happen. Straight up. All they had do to was say they dont support A-H's goals(which were fucking dumb) and WW1 just never happens. Yes, an eastern war might have happened, but that would be on A-H. They didn't need to do any of this, either. They were just a stupid, ridiculous imperialist wannabe empire and couldn't let go of territory they never really had any control of in the first place and was never theirs, either. They were awful.

[@johnnyo8299]

You are correct, Germany didn't start it they were forced into it

[@counterfeit1148]

​@@johnnyo8299They should have just found new allies by not being friends with the dying Austrians and Ottomans

[@generaltom6850]

@@counterfeit1148 Austria Hungary and the Ottomans weren’t dying Empires. They were as I heard somewhere, Empires in need of reform. They could have been saved. Plus Germany wasn’t in an alliance with the Ottomans until WW1 had actually begun.

[@counterfeit1148]

@@generaltom6850 They've been needing reform for so long it's unlikely they would have gotten it before dying from any other means

[@Dastov77]

Germany was the last to mobilize, and mobilization was an act of war in those days. They didn’t start the war.

[@homeworld22]

People debate endlessly if Hitler could have won WW2, but honestly, if the Central Powers had simply outbid the Allies for Italy's loyalty in 1914, Germany would have dominated the 20th century no problem. The war would have been won long before America could swing things the other way.

[@Trebor74]

Considering how ineffective Italy was,and the amount of support the allies needed to give them, perhaps the war would have ended quicker with Italy allied to Germany.🤷

[@demondelaplace5161]

In this alternate universe: “Did Cardorna have to start the 19th battle of the Var in 1918, when the war was clearly lost?”

[@maxpower3990]

If Italy had joined the Central Powers then France would have had to divert troops from the Western Front to the Alps to defend their border, the Italian and Austrian navies would have turned the Mediterranean Sea into a battleground disrupting convoys from India and Australia to Europe though Suez. Britain would have had to send more ships to deal with that weakening the Grand Fleet.

[@colinhunt4057]

@homeworld22 No, Germany was doomed to defeat in WW2 because it had no oil. Lacking any large supply of oil, Hitler could only win the war by seizing Soviet oil supply from the Caucasus. For the same reason, Barbarossa in 1941 could not succeed because the Wehrmacht only had enough fuel for 100 days of operations.By October, 1941, they were out of fuel, and operations ground to a halt for about a month while they collected more. By that time, it was too late.

[@homeworld22]

@@colinhunt4057 talking about WW1 fam

[@CommonSwindler]

Best diplomatic history channel around, bar none.

[@AmadoDom]

I don't think anyone but the british or the french that don't agree that Germany deserved to be a global power.

[@maynardburger]

Germany could have kept developing as a power without allying with a useless fucking empire like Austria-Hungary. They fucked themselves and started WW1 single handedly because of their poor calculus that they could win such a two front war.

[@bee_seph]

Great video! Very informative, great delivery too

[@Mr.Compass-95]

Great video as always. It's a little sad though; it's almost as if Austria-Hungary was doomed. I wonder what your opinion is on the so-called 'United States of Greater Austria' or the possibility of trialism for Austria-Hungary. In my opinion, it seems more like a fantasy, as the Hungarians would have likely rejected those ideas due to their advantageous position in the monarchy and their habitual intransigence. Even if they had accepted, those projects could have risked the integrity of the empire, considering the geopolitical climate you presented.

[@maynardburger]

It was doomed. That's exactly why Germany was 100% to blame. They didn't need to ally with them so desperately.

[@dano4996]

A great video with a lot of details as always which is really pleasant to understand what were the positions of the central powers just before the war. However I do think the German and Austrian positions were already in a shaky strategic position after having brought Britain and France closer together. The Russian weakness was based on short term because it was certain that Russia would have recovered at least partially from this blow. They strategically made a mistake by trapping themselves between Russia France and Britain. This is even more clear when we look at the French plan for the war : the XVII plan. This plan was mainly defensive and was keen to not invading Belgium in order to give an honorable reason for Italy to stay neutral and not alienated Britain and it perfectly worked which show that this trapping position was not due to luck. It is a very classic strategy for France to ally with powers which surround the leading reich power (Austria and then Prussia) to overstretched its power and win decisive wars. We can mention Sweden, Ottoman empire, Bavaria... In this war, it was Britain and Russia. Bismarck was keen to keep both Austria and Russia as allies to deny any ally for France. Wilhem II did not understand this strategic pitfall and fell right into what is usually a delicate position for the reich leading power. When this trap was set, only small changes were needed to turn German and Austrian position from delicate to desperate. When you end up in a desperate position, it means that you have done major blunders in previous affairs that you start to pay now.

[@philipbrooks402]

Fascinating. Although, given the pessimism in both Berlin and Vienna, had the assassination not taken place eg it had failed rather than Princip getting very lucky, would there have still been a war? I accept this is speculative but those feelings of the world closing in and that there wasn't much time would still have been present.

[@charlesburgoyne-probyn6044]

Maybe not then but later, Austria and Serbia seemed on a collision course and had swerved in 1908 but the festering remained

[@phillipsugwas]

​@@charlesburgoyne-probyn6044 The Austrians were total idiots. And useless on the battlefield This war was completely avoidable.

[@hassanminbaghdad]

Finally, an explanation that goes further than the excuse for the war

[@bcvetkov8534]

Fantastic video!!! Thanks for the upload as always. I love your channel and will always cherish it. Now I wanted to point out something incredibly important that seems to be overlooked in the long run (I'm talking history in general here.) A lot of the political maneuvering mentioned in the video was because of major geopolitical mistakes the Austro-Hungarians made especially the annexation of Bosnia. The annexation of Bosnia caused three problems that set AH on a collision course. 1. It irreversibly angered the Russians and ensured the league of three emperors was dead forever. Russia after that moment treated AH as an empire that HAD to be humbled before it caused more problems for Europe geopolitically. 2. It completely united the Serbian people against the AH government and set Serbia on a collision course against her. Relations were always bad from before this, stopping Serbia from getting a coastline in Albania really stung domestically. (It permanently alienated the Bulgarians too since Serbia couldn't give Macedonia to her and fulfill the treaty she signed. Serbia could not allow itself to gain nothing from the Balkan war afterall.) By 1900, Serbia understood it was going to have to fight its neighbors if it wanted to unite with other Serbs and Slavic speaking peoples under her banner. When Serbia won the Balkan war against the Ottomans with the assistance of its neighbors, it proved the Serbs could field a modern army and defeat a major power it gave the high command a probably unhealthy level of confidence. Which it was able to show off in the campaigns of 1914-1916. 3. And finally, it isolated AH on the world stage. Almost no one in Europe approved of the annexation. (Germany aside and they begrudgingly tolerated it.) Britain was angry it would upset the balance of power in the region and anger the Serbs irreversibly. France disliked AH for allying with the Germans to begin with. Italy had claims on AH lands. And already disliked the idea of any expansion by AH into the Balkans further. The Ottomans despised the decision but couldn't go against it for obvious reasons. Serbia and Montenegro and Romania both had territorial claims on AH land as well. (Romania's king aside as stated in this video with him being pro AH.) I hope this helped highlight the period a bit further for people. Have a nice day. 👍

[@MrLemonbaby]

Finally some real historical content followed by something of an erudite discussion. Thank you very much. I've sub'd of course.

[@danieloehler2494]

Germany starting WW I? What an insane nonsense. Reality is different: In summer 1914 the Kaiser went on his annual long vacation trip to Scandinavia with his yacht, believing that things would calm down and Austria's leaders would do nothing serious against Serbia. He had to be called into reality and to return to Berlin. This is defenetivly not the behaviour of somebody planning a big war.

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

They didn't start the war alone, but together with Austria! They started this war together because they believed they would gain territory through victories. The Bosnian Serb Gavrilo Princip was a resistance fighter who fought a completely justified resistance against the occupiers of his homeland! I would have done the same if this next prospective dictator had shown up in occupied Poland. The reason for that war was not because the Bosnian Serb resistance fighters Gavrilo Princip assassinated the prospective coming dictatorial monarch Franz Ferdinand. But this assassination wasn't enough for the Austrians as a reason for war. Because Serbia's involvement in the assassination was not proven in 1914. The Serbs also actually fulfilled almost the entire ultimatum of the Austrians, which was actually considered impossible to fulfill. That's why the German monarch Wilhelm II. himself determined that the Austrians actually had no reason for war against Serbia. That's why the Austrians looked for a reason. The message of an armed banter, which had been triggered by the shelling of Austrian troops against Serbian steamers near Temes Kubin on the Danube, was then the reason that was looking for. So the Srbs were accused of starting hostilities. The armed banter was then exaggerated into a battle and Interpreted as an actual opening of the fighting by Serbia and the alleged battle was expressly mentioned as a reason for war in the declaration of war by Austrian monarch Franz Joseph. At the latest on July 28 1914, and in any case before the declaration of war was sent, it was announced that this alleged battle was a hoax. Nevertheless, Austria attacked Serbia without reason for war and the Germans backed the Austrians. Which is why they are also responsible for this war. Because without this backing, Austria would not have dared to attack Serbia, which was allied with Russia. The Germans also wanted absolutely to find a reason for war! The aircraft of Nuremberg was then the reason that they looking for! The aircraft of Nuremberg refers to a media hoax in which one or several French aircraft allegedly dropped bombs near Nuremberg, Germany on August 2, 1914, only one day prior to Germany's declaration of war on France. The story seems to have suited the General Staff's agenda. On August 2 the Bavarian military plenipotentiary in Berlin reported to Munich: "Welcoming news of a bombing at Nuremberg by French aircraft has arrived from our III. Army Command. Without even waiting for a diplomatic act the Ministry of War and the General Staff now have declared France an enemy." By the way they even simply raided Belgium in 1914 without pretext! In summary explained! This is how one behaves when one wants war! One constructs reasons for war.

[@eallobigal4657]

Germany started WW1, not Kaiser Wilhelm. Kaiserboos often neglect the fact that Kaiser Wilhelm II, is in fact not all of Germany, and the government and other groups do.

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

@@eallobigal4657 Kaiser Wilhelm and the Germans he ruled and who followed him started this war together, but they did so together with the Austrians and their Kaiser!

[@Ian-Casper]

If you look into the written correspondance between German and Austrian leadership in the weeks before the war, you realize that the majority of German leadership didn't approve on the war against Serbia. Also, Germany did not declare war (or mobilize) until Russia started its mobilization, giving the Schlieffen-Plan a natural countdown. (You really have to emphazise just how important mobilization was at the time. Basically, if you let your neighboring country mobilize without mobilizing yourself, you lost the war before it even started.)

[@swanner95]

This video just makes my personal alternate timeline where britain doesnt enter the war all the more complex and convoluted. And i cannot thank you enough for that.

[@FranceIsPropertyofEngland]

​​ "No nation prepared the way for it's commercial conquests more brutally than England did by means of the sword, and no other nation has defended such conquests more ruthlessly. Is it not a characteristic quality of British statecraft that it knows how to use political power in order to gain economic advantages and, inversely, to turn economic conquests into political power? What an astounding error it was to believe that England would not have the courage to give its own blood for the purposes of its own economic expansion! The fact that England did not possess a national army proved nothing; for it is not the actual military structure of the moment that matters but rather the will and determination to use whatever military strength is available. England has always had the armament which she needed. She always fought with those weapons which were necessary for success. She sent mercenary troops, to fight as long as mercenaries sufficed; but she never hesitated to draw heavily and deeply from the best blood of the whole nation when victory could be obtained only by such a sacrifice. And in every case the fighting spirit, dogged determination, and use of brutal means in conducting military operations have always remained the same. But in Germany, through the medium of the schools, the Press and the comic papers, an idea of the Englishman was gradually formed which was bound eventually to lead to the worst kind of self-deception. This absurdity slowly but persistently spread into every quarter of German life. The result was an undervaluation for which we have had to pay a heavy penalty. The delusion was so profound that the Englishman was looked upon as a shrewd business man, but personally a coward even to an incredible degree. Unfortunately our lofty teachers of professorial history did not bring home to the minds of their pupils the truth that it is not possible to build up such a mighty organization as the British Empire by mere swindle and fraud. The few who called attention to that truth were either ignored or silenced. I can vividly recall to mind the astonished looks of my comrades when they found themselves personally face to face for the first time with the Tommies in Flanders." - A. Hitler

[@williamchamberlain2263]

Sounds like the European powers convincing themselves that the Japanese couldn't design and produce their own aircraft, or find and train pilots to fly them, or find and train assault troops. If people don't travel enough they can form really bad appreciations of other people being other _people._

[@singular9]

As someone who has studied this period extensively from the Russian perspective, there are many points to add on the Russian side that may and probably may not clarify some nuances. 1. The German and Russian royalty were on very good terms, even on a level that could be described as deeply personal correspondence. The archives tell the story in such a manner that both Russia and Germany knew this war would happen years before, and many times Russia urged Germany to not do so for the sake of everyone involved, not because Russia couldn't fight the war or anything, but that Russia didn't know how bad it could get, which is the scary part. The German leadership looked at things from the perspective of "it can't get that bad can it?" and the Russians looked at it from the perspective of every previous war it has fought, "it can always get much worse". 2. The Russian monarchy was much less unstable in 1914 than people like to claim. The latest reforms were going in the right direction and were backed up by positive results. The archives show many written up plans for more reform, and even a transition of the monarchy to something more constitutional in the near to mid term future (think 1925). The Czar and his family KNEW that this would eventually happen, but didn't want to allow a scenario similar to France pre napoleon, where you simply let go of the reigns and let everything crumble. They also knew if this transition happened sooner than necessary, that Germany and Austria would take advantage of the situation. 2.1 -- It is now common documented knowledge that Germany funded a large portion of Lenin's campaigns in 1917, taking out loans from JP Morgan at the time as even certain bankers thought that this would be a great investment opportunity (there are even records from the Russian space program being funded by these same bankers, but that is outside the scope of this comment). There are several stance's to this part of the story. One being that it was inevitable for the Russian revolution to happen and Lenin winning. The other being that if Lenin wasn't in the picture at all, the temporary government would have given the people what they wanted, a constitution, limiting the power of the Tsar, and moving on with rebuilding after the war. There is very little evidence that suggests that the Russian people wanted the tsar completely removed, even on a cultural level, the Tsar was a religious father figure at the least, removing him would have been unholy in the eyes of the people. There is very little evidence to suggest that the communists would have had any influence if it wasn't for external support. (another tangent, the reason the bolsheviks won even with numerical inferiority vs the "whites" was due to the fact that the bolsheviks were far from the only threat, as there were MANY revolutionaries each with their own armies, goals, agendas, all over the giant country, which was near impossible to defeat without having a dominant position in logistics). 3. Finally, if the war in 1914 had not proceeded as planned, there was little evidence to suggest to the germans that they wouldn't have another opportunity in the future. As stated before, future Russian reform towards the late 1920's and 1930's would have comfortably delayed Russia's ability to fight a prolonged war. I think people always like to point out that Russia always had the man power, and that is a blatant lie. What russia had was the enforcement of a large army, at the cost of its own population. Although Russia did record roughly 170 million people in its borders, only 40% were Russians, the rest identified as something else, such as ukranian. Forcing people who aren't russian to fight in your army would have already weakend its position, and there was always discrimination in Russian leadership from fielding large armies of other nationalities. For example, the polish corps in 1914 numbered around 29,000 men, hardly a large amount compared to the 8-9 million poles who lived in the russian empire. So the argument of "numbers" although valid since they fielded 129 divisions in 1914, doesn't come without the fact that they were trained worse than the germans. Even if more reforms came in the future, Russia, under a new constitution would have more problems at home, and thus Germany should have instead funded and helped those who wanted constitutional reform in russia at the time. This would have already made Russia weaker and less willing to fight a massive war at the time. At least from the Russian perspective, this entire war was utter stupidity on Germany's part. I would blame the entire thing on Germany, since they had the ability to prevent this from happening, while still maintaining its strength in europe.

[@kylekennedy06]

Interesting point and well said!

[@AkashLankala]

and now austria is known for nice skiing

[@Rain-Man]

Awesome work as always!

[@KungFuHonky]

Very well done. I approve of your sources. One author you might want to look at as well is John Keegan. I think his take on WW1 goes well with your own.

[@sethward7428]

"Pretending to like Italians was apparently too much for the sake of European domination" hahaha

[@mosscow6056]

Best way to wake up, Old Britannia providing with the greatest of content.

[@ilFrancotti]

When a country sees waging war as its only way to survive on the diplomatic stage.. it has already lost the struggle before its very beginning (the same case of Japan in 1941).

[@charlesburgoyne-probyn6044]

All war is failure of a peace , countries often go to war when they don't have much to lose reputation , breaking a taboo wise such as with Russia and probably China the way things are going in east Asia hence when the relationship is positive disputes tend to be addressed peacefully as going to war makes one look bad hence why say 20 years ago there was no chance of disputes between Russia and Ukraine being sought to be resolved by war but as the relationship between Russia and the west deteriorated war was no longer such a taboo

[@qboxer]

Great video. Would you be willing to make a video on the Heimwehr and Austrofacism under Dolfuß?

[@augustosolari7721]

What about the interactions inside the Central Powers? Is there a chance Austria Hungary sought after German support because they knew they would not get it after 1914 due to deteriorating relations between the Powers?

[@hakonandreasolaussen1949]

Well, Germany gave the blank cheque of support partly because they didn’t directly support Austria the last time (the Bosnian crisis, iirc?), so Germany felt like they absolutely had to support Austria in their next move in order to maintain the alliance and not be diplomatically isolated. This is just mostly based on one of the «origins of WW1» episodes of the Revolutions, podcast series 10.