The War Aims of Each Nation in WWI (Part 2)

Whilst the Great Powers of Europe may have fought the First World War for grand ambitions of European and World domination, caught in between were smaller nations, pursuing their own more limited objectives.
This video aims to be a short documentary, looking at some of the War Aims pursued by a few of these more minor powers.
Sources:
Modern British Foreign Policy, 1880-1939, Paul Hayes
1914-1918, David Stevenson
The Struggle For Mastery in Europe, AJP Taylor
1914-1918 Encyclopedia
Chapters:
0:00 Introduction
0:17 Italy
2:52 Ottomans
5:01 Serbia
6:27 Bulgaria
7:43 Romania
9:15 Greece
#WW1, #History,

[Olefante]

The Italians were also promised dramatic amounts of land in Chad & Egypt, albeit mostly desert (Article 13 of Treaty of London) This land was rumored to have valuable metals in it, however it was just simply... useless desert. However, even though it was useless desert, the allies would only give a token of it to Italy, and would keep a land in particular known as the Aozou Strip, which they would be forced to give to Italy in the first act of Appeasement prior to WW2. Also, you may've had a research error, as they did not promise Italy a protectorate. Article 7 of the Treaty of London says that Italy - if they receive Dalmatia - promises to recognize the total partition of Albania between Montenegro & Greece. Italy would establish a protectorate over Albania, however it wasn't by any treaty obligations, and would be used to open a new southern front against Austria. They actually received international condemnation for such occupation.

[TheBalkanHistorian.]

@Alex Zero Venizelos Tittoni agreement. You are right that the Italians grew a strong dislike of the Greeks and assisted the Turkish nationalists but until the retreat of the Greek army, the partition of Albania between Italy and Greece was written in stone. Idk where he got Montenegro

[Sallahudin]

Minor mistake, that land *did* have valuable minerals, like oil, but they weren’t discovered until after decolonisation.

[Sallahudin]

@Cereal Killer Lol, Attaturk

[Cereal Killer]

Italy was also given territories in Turkey only to be taken by the Turks

[No Name]

@Alex Zero Italy didn't hate Greece

[Comrade Hellas]

9:40 Greece ordered two dreadnoughts of their own, the irony of the situation is that Greece ordered them from Germany, while the Ottomans from Britain, and both ended up fighting on the opposite side of the war than the owners of the shipyard they ordered their dreadnoughts from.

[Kas Adam]

The entente had eyes on the middle eastern territories of the ottomans, they never wanted or thought there's even a need for an Ottoman entry on their side. They did everything in their power to make Ottomans fight against them.

[Jane Za]

Like imperial puppet.

[omegawonton]

Entente: Lets bribe Italy to join the war so they can open a front in one of the most mountainous places in Europe! This will allow us to crush the Central Powers! Also the Entente: Damn why Italy not pushing through the big mountains?

[Spacecats218]

@Luca GardenalAmerica’s entrance into the war is best seen as a phycological blow to the Central Power’s morale as they now would have to fight another nation that was considered a major power at the time(noting that America wasn’t yet considered a great power until the interwar period.)

[Gabry Fede]

@Biserka Stanisic idk what you understood from my previous answer, nore from my original comment, but you just literally stated that Croatian territories have been under an Italian state in the Middle Age... which is literally what I said before, and it wasn't the topic of my answer neither.

[Biserka Stanisic]

@Gabry Fede, don't pretend that you don't know what kind of a trading power in the Mediterranean Region the Republic of Venice was and how the Venetian merchants protect their commercial interest using their troops of mercenaries and robbers (the attack on the croatian town Zadar at the croatian Adriatic coast 1202, and the attack on Konstantinopolis in the Byzantine Empire 1204). Anywhere in the Mediterranean Region where the Romans and later, in the Middle Ages the Venetians had any econonic or military interest in building fortifications, founding setlenents etc. the Romans and later the Venetians had expansionist tendencis that led to the enlargement of their realm by expansionist wars and colonisation of attractive territories like Istria, Dalmatia, Iliria (all of them nawadays Croatian territory) where Croatian people have been living as majority population for more than 1000 years. So, Croatian territory (Istria, Dalmatia, Iliria) was never Italian, except for the short period of Italian fascist occupation of the Croatian coastal territory in the first half of the 20th century. It is also important to notice that Italian state was founded /established in 1871 whereas Croatian State was established as an independent state and blessed by Pope John VIII in 879. Serenisima Republega de Venesia (in Venetian language) also had numerous overseas possessions in Cyprus, Greece, Albania... What to do with this facts today?!

[Gabry Fede]

@Biserka Stanisic and how many italians died and suffered for a dictator who based part of his initial propaganda on the "Vittoria Mutilata" caused exactly by this war? I don't claim those lands, we already own the half of the Adriatic, and we would have lost them in WWII anyway (and after a genocide against the italian minorities a would add). But a pact is a pact: you can win or lose a war, we won but our allies betrayed us and today people who don't know what they are talkin' about call US the traitors. THIS was the topic of my comment. Ps: it's incorrect to say that those lands have never belonged to Italy because they were part of Venice Repubblic

[Biserka Stanisic]

@Gabry Fede, the Entante : Let's promise to "the pathetic Italians" some, ah! so beautiful and attractive Croatian Lands (that have never belonged to Italy), in excange of the opening of a very useful front - where "the pathetic Italians" suffered great looses from those terrible Croats and other saut Slavic soldiers, who were the main troops in the A-U Army on the Isonzo Front (the river Soča on the rerritory of present day Slovenia). How many Croats and other south Slavic soldiers died in the battels of the Isonzo, defending their own Lands (in the first line Slovenia and Croatia)? Don't even ask!

[HobNob7606]

In part 3 you should do Japan, USA and Belgium Edit: if you enjoy making content you could also do a Part 4 explaining the wishes of people groups without their own nations such as the Poles and the Czechs. It would be interesting to see what land they wished to receive in their nation and who they fought (for example if Poles rebelled in Russia after they signed their peace treaty with Germany)

[Sandeep Gill]

I don't think the U.S wanted any land, just money and other compensation.

[Yami]

@Чылгычы Ондар Actually you could be surprised by the ambitions of some political parties in Belgium at the time. They wanted to take all german territory west to the Rhine river after the war... They didn't.

[secret name]

@Чылгычы Ондар This. The main goal was really to not become a puppet of either France or Germany.

[bighillcraft]

dont forget Montenegro lmao

[Adriano Alves da Rocha]

and add Portugal, that joined the war in 1916 and fought both in france and in africa agains the germans...

[Guido Serafino]

Great video! Just to mention that the fact that Italy's claims were not accomplished became known as "Il mito della vittoria mutilata" or the mith of the mutilated victory. It was popularized by the man who inspired Mussolini, Gabriele D'Annunzio.

[Toa_cracau]

@secret name yeah, like, the Americans ignored the humans rights violations and attempts at Italy’s existence done by Jugoslavia just because they were a potential ally, and the English propaganda had no mercy on Italy either during ww2

[secret name]

As with all fascist movements, one of the great motivators is wounded national pride. Italy was not respected even after the war.

[Toa_cracau]

Si, però D’Annunzio non lo credeva un mito, lo credeva un fatto, ma si, e poi, un po’ è pure vero, ma in ogni caso, perdemmo buona parte di quei territori dopo il sequel

[Zek keZ]

esatto !

[Angel B.]

Venizelos favored the British because Greece's position was mostly a maritime power seated at the eastern center of the the Mediterranean Sea, which was mainly controlled by the Entente powers (Britain). Geography played an important role in the conflict, as British supremacy could have shaped Greece's future if it answered accordingly. Going against them or favoring neutrality was like challenging a sea god. Sooner or later, the territorial claims that had been won from the Balkan wars would have been taken away by the very powers (British) who gave them in the first place. King Constantine I and his royal court favored the Central Powers due to the existing notion of "divine rule" in autocratic societies (e.g. Germany, Russia), the king's ties with the Germans (his wife was the sister of the Kaiser Wilhelm II), the near invisibility of the German Imperial Army on the front at that time, and the fear of retaliation of neighboring countries who had a previous beef against Greece (including the Greeks from Asia Minor suffering reprisals from the Turks). Political division played a major impact on Greek society even after the end of WWI. Even Ioannis Metaxas (then an officer in Constantine's army, and later the future dictator of Greece), had a strong disbelief that both WW1 and the subsequent Greco-Turkish war would end in success for the Greeks.

[secret name]

I must say an invisible army does sound pretty impressive

[Mint]

Germany was not autocratic

[Proud2bGreek]

The royal family of Greece was literally German, all of their ancestors and descendants from that point of time were German or Danish, I only managed to find one Russian member but I'm not sure how Russian she was considering the Romanovs were pretty much Germans themselves.

[Αποστόλης-Apostólis Μ.]

Plus, it was unthinkable for Venizelos to side with the Ottomans and Bulgaria, both of them had antithetical strategic interests with Greece

[Old Britannia]

I hope you enjoy the long overdue second part of this war aims series. This is the first video I've made where I wrote the script without a good grounding in the subject already. Thus, whilst I have tried to be as rigorous as possible in my research, I am sure there will be a few omissions/mistakes apparent to those of you with a better knowledge of specific countries. As such, I will try and include in this pinned comment any corrections/additions those of you with more expertise than me feel ought to have been included in the video. Nonetheless, I hope to any that watch, you are able to derive some enjoyment from the video. Thank you for watching. Corrections: 7:30 This should be ‘Northern’, rather than ‘Southern Dobruja’.

[Military AA]

@Old Britannia Greece map is wrong btw Turkiye has fought against greeks lots of time at Sakarya, about Eskisehir... these cities almost midde of anatolia u can search them at google or turkiye map etc... they didnt took only west coast like the information in this video

[John Gojcevic]

You left a lot of stuff out, like the planned partition of Albania and some more people have already stated, disliked.

[Sticla Voda]

@Old Britannia Ah yes that is logical. Thanks for explaining.

[Old Britannia]

@Sticla Voda Ah yes you’re completely right regarding Dobruja, idiotic mistake on my part, thank you for pointing it out. Compensation is perhaps a clumsy way of phrasing it. What I’m trying to argue is the Central Powers recognised the annexation despite the harshness of the treaty. Seems to me they could have called an end to it had they wanted to. In effect then ‘compensating’ Romania to some degree. But I agree it’s phrased badly.

[Sticla Voda]

I wrote in another comment. At 7:30, it says Southern Dobruja, when it should have been Northern Dobruja. Also, Bessarabia was not given in compensation. As far as I know, Bessarabia was an independent state that just so happened to break away exactly when necessary so that Romania could end up gaining land from Russia also, since this state had voted for union with Romania. It was something external forces had no power in, and Romania was quite lucky to achieve this. We had been previously, before the war, on the edge, not certainly sure on which side to join, because we wished for land from both powers. Our real territorial demands were what we desired in the Hungarian-Romanian war, something we were denied as to prevent our rise to dominance, a theme trouought Romanian history.

[No Name]

Additional ottoman demands not mentioned was that after italy entered the war ottoman would demand the dodecanese islands from Italy which were illegal occupied by italy in violation of their treaty with ottomans that ended the italo turkish war Also ottomans supported the senussi rebellion in libya (an underrated part of ww1 in my opinion) against the italians hoping to reestablish their sovereignty over libya after the war

[secret name]

@Kas Adam True. Foreigners love to visit turkey as the inflation means travelling there becomes twice as cheap each year. Both their goods and their women are very cheap these days.

[Yasin Ayas]

@secret name i agree but cant do anything except waiting for the 2023 elections

[secret name]

@Yasin Ayas Stability is the number one requirement for economic stability. I'm not blaming you but it'd be great if your government could stop threatening neighbors and respect international law. Otherwise you might end up like Russia today.

[Yasin Ayas]

@secret name first, iflation is actually %180 right now and second idc anymore about greece, armenia and shit. its their problem not ours.

[Sticla Voda]

Quick correction. The territory Bulgaria had occupied is Northern Dobruja. Not Southern Dobruja as the video says.

[Potato God]

when part 1 is in the beginning of summer and part 2 is at the end

[Jack D]

How's the potato famine?

[batya_v_zdanyy]

What if the third part will be about major countries of the Russian Civil War? It is a part of WWI

[Émolohtrab]

I think I like that.

[hac ked]

@Old Britannia I started crying

[19]

@Old Britannia Snow worries, mate. I'm just glad you actuslly made the videos to begin with! I would have waited many more months for quality such as this.

[Jandro Martínez]

Great video! I'd really like to see a third part covering other nations such as the US, Belgium, maybe even Japan, aswell as stateless nations such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, Arabia...

[Mirco Testa]

2:15: Only 3 British divisions were sent to Italy. Italy sent more troops to the Macedonian front than the British did to the Italian one. You should also mention that in 1917 the Bolsheviks publicated the (at the time secret) treaty of London.

[I VC]

I'm suprised how much you knew about the Romanian hopes and goals, as well as the fact about Regele Ferdinard never signing the treaty of Bucharest. Very cool!

[Harry's History]

The best way to be balanced and fair is to have everyone equally unhappy with you - seems to be the strategy of the Entente with the minor powers. :) Love your maps by the way - beautiful.

[Hikaru Saito]

Hi, great video as always. I understand but was still disappointed that Japan was not included in the list of the nation's war aims you described. I was wondering if you ever thought about covering the Anglo-Japanese alliance. I feel like there is an exciting story to tell there as the Yellow-peril was in full swing around that time. Many nations as you know were fearful of the rise of an eastern country: Kaiser Willhelm in particular. But I remember reading somewhere that King Edward didn't share that opinion or not to the extent of the other leaders. Cheers.

[secret name]

@Miguel Padeiro Oh really, interesting.

[Miguel Padeiro]

@secret name Why do you even think I'm asking for Portugal? Of course they fought, they weren't neutral, they entered in 1916 and fought in the western front for the Entente.

[secret name]

@Miguel Padeiro Did they even fight in WW1? I don't think neutral nations are included anywhere, otherwise he might have to do the whole world.

[Miguel Padeiro]

@Old Britannia Will you include Portugal in a part 3?

[IronDuke]

Ñ

[Braeden Russell]

Yo man, your videos great! The quality of your editing and story telling punches way above your current sub count. Keep up the good stuff!

[Mendes Josr]

Portugal just entered to avoid having its colonies used by the big powers as barganing chips in a peace treaty. We gathered that if we were oficially an Ally, Britain would not offer our colonies to Germany in a deal. It worked but ours and the Belgium Congo were on the table in the 30's as an offer for a "final settlement" with Hitler instead of returning the German former colonies.

[In aeternum Roma Mater "DCCLIII"]

The Romanians did manage to take a part of Transylvania in the Romanian Campaign of 1916 which was also according to the plan of Z Hypothesis but the Germans did actually take Romania entering the war very seriously so both Falkenhayn and August Von Mackensen was sent to deal with it. Romania had about 523.000+ Casualties already and their army got reduced from 658.000 to 400.000+ but thanks to the Russians Romania managed to hold for another year and the Romanian army managed to win three Heroic battles but when the Russian revolution started Romania signed a armistice in 1917 (Armistice of Focoşani) and in 1918 had no choice but to make a peace treaty with the Central Powers. Romania was literally cut off of the rest of Entente and they were running out of supplies and moral. So they signed the treaty of Bucharest In 1918 but rejoined the war and declared war on the Central Powers and defeated also Hungary in the Romanian-Hungarian war.

[Marc Antoniu Bozai]

@In aeternum Roma Mater "DCCLIII" Well, I am sure because I've read the constitution in power at the time. For a treaty to be made, it needed to have the King's signature. No king's signature = no treaty.

[In aeternum Roma Mater "DCCLIII"]

I know that King Ferdinand the First refused to sign the Treaty but the Prime Minister Alexandru Marghiloman did sign it. And the Senate and Chamber of Deputies ratified it. Now, I don't know exactly how this works but I'm sure that for the Treaty to be valid the King must sign it. Which he didn't, but Historical speaking the Treaty of Bucharest was a Treaty which the King didn't sign.

[Marc Antoniu Bozai]

@Gigi Kontra Without the King's signature it was paper and ink and little more. Not a peace treaty. And the CP diplomats knew it (the romanian consitution was public and pretty standard for the time).

[Gigi Kontra]

Signed, but not ratified :)

[Georgios_]

The Greeks had also occupied Northern Epirus in 1914, a region with significant Greek presence today and at the time a Greek majority. The Greek Navy was significantly superior to the Turkish one, so most of the fighting was concentrated on the Macedonian front. The Battle of Skra was an astounding Greek victory against unfavorable odds, paving the way to the union with Thrace. At the same time, Greece had hoped to gain Eastern Thrace and Constantinople, the Ionia and Bithynia regions in Anatolia, a settlement for Northern Epirus, Dodecanese and Cyprus (British holding that was promised to Greece for entering the war, but was retained by Britain) and also to support the Greeks of Pontus. Initially, the Prime Minister Venizelos did not support an independent Pontic Greek Republic in North Eastern Anatolia, opting for an autonomy in the new Republic of Armenia. However later, both Wilson and Venizelos, as well as many other international representatives, changed their opinion at the Paris Peace Conference, after they were convinced by Archbishop Chrysanthos of Trapezounda.

[Georgios_]

@Kas Adam If it makes you feel any better, I'm 18. I know what I'm talking about, and the fact that you think I'm talking with "ifs" makes it more amusing. I only said what actually happened, not what could have. It is true that the Soviets heavily supported Turkey with arms and ammunitions, after the deal of Kemal and Lenin in 1920. I'm not saying this to downgrade Turkey, in fact this is a big plus for Turkish diplomacy. I'm only saying that you can't seriously believe the historical jokes the Turkish propaganda claims. That Turkey was alone fighting against 7 superpowers and won because it is good. In fact, for as long as Turkey was isolated, it was losing heavily. Greece lost international support after a pro-German government took power. This lead to France changing sides and stealing Greek money for example. And if I'm hypernationalist for saying the truth of the genocide of Anatolian Greeks, then so be it. The day hasn't come that the thief shouts and the homeowner is afraid. I will always stay by historical truth, regardless of the Turkish state propaganda.

[Georgios_]

@brăileanul yes it was, and even today has a very large Greek community, but many have now moved south to Greece after 1991. In fact, even when the Greek army left the region during the Balkan Wars, the residents roze up themselves and established the Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus. They later managed to join Greece. Plus, the only resistance in the area during WW2 was done by the Greeks, the MAVI (Metopo Apeleftheroseos Voriou Ipirou) so yes, it is majority Greek. When the Greek army entered the region fighting against Italy, the locals greeted them as saviours.

[TheSteamEngineer]

As a Bulgarian i was taught that we picked the axis because their promises were more plausable. The Entante's promises meanwhile would have been harder to act on and were seen as less likely to be fulfilled.

[Captain Mccuckin]

On the subject of northen dobrudja it was mostly because it was co-occupied by Bulgaria and Germany . The reasoning for it was the germans were exporting the wheat from the region to germany. Bulgaria fully occupied northen dobrudja very soon before the war ended

[brăileanul]

Yes. In the Berlin Protocol of 1918, Bulgaria annexed all of dobruja below the danube delta

[Cvetomir Dimitrov]

Why! That's how every video on historical topic should start and that's the whole idea of this one. Very well presented, analysis was good and accurate, on extremely sensitive topic as I guess we all agree that all the 20-21 century problems started there. P. S. What surprises me a lot are the civil and friendly comments below the video. That's rare, especially when Balkan nations are involved. Respect for that! 🙂

[bm yt]

4:55 the more i hear about this man the more respect i have for him. What a legend

[Stoic Historian]

Great video like always, love seeing your channels growth!

[Paul Brockschmidt]

Perhaps the most underrated history Channel on KZbin. For the quality of the work and astonishing lack of subscribers

[DraphoTube]

I hope you keep up the series, and maybe try a video out in which you explain how the European map would have looked if let's say the Entente had won, and how skirmishes might have been resolved? And another map in which the Americans decided how Europe would look like? Seeing that many proposals were made, like to see alternate realities in which different factions had more prominence.

[Gabriel Vicuña]

@DraphoTube WW1 UK-FRA-RUS-US alliance = Entente = Allies. Kept the Allies name in 1941. WW1 GER & associates were the Central Powers. WW2 GER & associates were the Axis.

[DraphoTube]

@Gabriel Vicuña they called themselves the Allies tho, the central powers aren't known as entente? oops

[Gabriel Vicuña]

The entente did (indeed) win the war. Remember, the Anglo-French alliance is the entente.

[Forthright Gambitia]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Albania was recognised as independent from the Ottoman Empire by the major powers on 29 July 1913 by the treaty Treaty of London, so technically it wasn't an still an Ottoman territory by the start of WW1. Admittedly it took until the Protocol of Florence in 17 December 1913 for them to determine the exact borders, but by the start of WW1 the Ottomans had no European territory except Eastern Thrace, also losing Crete to the Greeks. As for the Ottomans entering, maybe 'decision' is too strong a word. It was more a conspiracy between the Germans and certin Young Turk figures to create the conditions where it had no choice. Unlike the other minor powers who entered seeking mercenary gains Germany probably gained more from their entry than vice-versa, especially as it created a major headache and distraction for Britain, although the Kaiser's hope that Britain's Muslim subjects would rebel under the authority of the Caliph was wildly optimistic given how discredited the Ottoman sultans were by this stage of their decline.

[Васил Камджалов]

Logically as always Bulgaria would be skipped in the comment section. I would say that it was a great explanation if any but to be fare for all the clip would have been too long maybe. The army wasn't really defeated but there was no food and the line was broken, flags of regiments are taken after defeat and Bulgaria hasnt given any to this day. The bulgarian army had great reputation since 1878 to WW1.

[Васил Камджалов]

@David Mijin I just look at it as part of war as you couldnt control everything or wouldnt. We could blame other sides in wars of the same but in the Balkans this leads to just "I suffered more, beg me for forgiveness". The best is to search what everyone did as history in school explain it always in a way that would look reasonable and fair of what you people did but horrible what the rest have done. The only reason I might defend sometimes the position of my country is that the explanation kinda would make sense as the sole loser in the wars overall and didnt get much of anything but being blamed by the victors as they write the history. This blaming formed a group of people in Bulgaria who would look really deep into past events to any obscure people to get the whole picture because they are tired of being the bad guy when our position or desires were reasonable. This has resulted in arguments about history with other Balkan nations to be very one sided now as there are no new taking points.

[David Mijin]

Even as Serb I gotta admit you fought well, beside some war crimes in Serbia sadly. But militarily you were good.

[cqpp]

@Brother Hao yeah the outcome of the war was really shit. No self determination for Germans and Germans divided into several countries and also Czechslovak invasion of German-Austria taking Sudetenland in the process. Bulgaria losing access to Aegean, Hungary being fucked over by all sides in an opportunistic land grab by all it's neighbours, Ottoman Empire being divided and broken up in the most retarded way possible and thus being a huge reason for a majority of the wars in the middle east.

[Brother Hao]

@cqpp Also as was brought up in the video our allies held us back and down, we could've destroyed all four of the armies (serbs, french, british and greece potentially depending on if the government sides with the king or not once the latter mentioned armies are gone) and shored up a lot of men for the eastern front which wouldve allowed for atleast a couple hundred thousand to be moved from the east to the western front. Bulgarian warfare is an offensive and aggressive style, not defensive. In the large majority of our history we've been the ones to start the attack in battles and even when we're on the backfoot we ambush the enemy. It really is a shame the outcome of this war.

[Brother Hao]

@cqpp Something people tend to ignore is that we relied heavily in terms of material and supplies. Mobilising 1/4 of the population obviously had some serious negative effects on our economy, especially as we still had peasant style agriculture and our industry wasn't that sizeable at all in comparison to what we were taking on. What happened in bulgaria especially as you've already said was that it only surrendered once it's population started starving, the same with us.

[C]

Brilliant work man, your videos are excellent and truly insightful

[NukeRussia]

The disrespect towards Italy in WW1 is insane. The alpine front was easily the most unforgiving and toughest frontline of the war and conducting a successful offensive through frozen mountains and valleys is harder than doing it in northern France. Caporetto was not an austrian victory but a german one. And most of Italy's WW1 shortcomings were thanks to professional idiot and part time general Cadorna. Once he was replaced by Diaz the Italians turned the tide against Austria in a year and crushed them at Vittorio Veneto

[No Name]

@ OttomanEnthusiast If we go by that, you should know in 1918 AH had a numerical advantage... As I said, I won't argue about Ottoman, you refuse to understand and learn, anyone else would have won in Egypt with 3 millions conscripted, but Ottomans didn't, they were weak and pathetic

[OttomanEnthusiast]

@No Name Actually, its almost a million casualties for austrians as well

[OttomanEnthusiast]

@No Name Sure, but conscriptions in the ottomans werent very helpful for them. I see you ignore other troops numbers.. The entire allied force in the middle eastern campaign was 4 million. Like I said, I won't argue about italy anymore, you don't listen. Austria would have died with or without italy

[No Name]

@ OttomanEnthusiast On Middle East English had 2 millions conscripted. Ottoman empire 3 millions

[Tenid]

ah, i didnt see there was a second part, glad i found this, thanks! now i know more about the smaller nations!!

[Chris Yuri]

Thanks for all your work man, my only criticism is out of greed as I want more longer videos, if possible just talking over a still image would be more than adequate with your illuminating takes.

[Old Britannia]

Haha, thank you that’s very flattering. I’ve had quite a lot of work recently. But much of it is done now, so hopefully the upload rate will pick up a bit.

[Andrew Clayton]

Great job dude! You never fail to impress me!

[AccessTheMainframe]

We need a Part 3. The USA, but also Japan, China, Belgium, Portugal and Siam might be interesting. Also the Dominions for a Part 4. "Paris 1919" by Margaret MacMillan details some of the more interesting demands from the Dominions. For instance South Africa wanted to annex half of Mozambique and compensate Portugal by giving it much of German East Africa. Canada wanted to annex the Alaskan Panhandle and compensate the USA by getting the British to surrender Belize and the Bahamas. Stuff like that.

[the Greek guy]

About Greece.The king was right about the start of the war.Had Greece joined early we would have been overrun by the Central Powers who had already beaten Serbia.It would be an 1 vs 4 and 2 of them would be great powers

[Lukas Wilhelm]

Enver Pasha's thought actually make sense when you think about it, the only thing that keep the Ottoman Empire still an empire at that time was because great powers of Europe want a balance of power by keeping it on weaken position, if one side lost as the video said it would be partition evantually by which ever side win. It's just Turks choose wrong side or more accurately got Shanghaied by the Germans.

[Moose Watcher123]

Just found this channel, your video quality is great, keep up the excellent work.

[Hello there]

The Greeks were also offered Cyprus and North Epirus by the British in 1915 if they joined the war.

[Georgios_]

Yes but this wasn't actually meant to go through. The British made this promise to the Royalist government which was pro-German. Therefore they knew they'd have to reject, they only made it so that the Greeks would support Venizelos more

[brăileanul]

România did not gain what it had aimed for. It desired more territory from Hungary than it got. Notably the city of Beceskcaba (I don't know how to type it correctly) was seen as the ultimate officially claimed aim. You can see the exact frontier Romania claimed at the Wikipedia article Treaty of Bucharest (1916). Notably Romania also demanded all of Banat but only received 2/3 as French-backed Serbian troops managed to enter the region first. Conflict was close to erupt between these two nations as a result. Romania also had aims for Northern Maramureș but these were developed as the war ensued. They were also given up as Czechslovakia demanded the area.

[Klaus_Safta]

@Hristo Ninov No no, you need to know the historical context. We were the slaves of the hungarians. We were tortured and killed by them, and the price of the dropped blood to get Transylvania back, really isnt much compared to what we actually got

[Klaus_Safta]

@Ararune If we take it like this, it means Istria is also romanian, as we were always there before the slave-......sorry, slavs. There still live a bunch of istro-romanians

[Klaus_Safta]

@Ararune So if you own the origin of the etimology of the word, it means you own the region itself?

[Тотила]

Creating Yugoslavia was a mistake for Serbia. I wish we followed the London agreement even if we did not participate directly in it's making, it was far better for us than Yugoslavia. Serbs remaining outside of those borders could have been moved to Serbia via population transfer or something like that. And we would have avoided Jasenovac and other Croat concentration camps in WW2. All those sacrifices for nothing.

[Praefectus]

@Erik B No. It would not. Croats would be separated into three different countries and they would never be able to push for their independence as during the WW2, Germany would dare not to create an Independent Croatia at the expense of their Hungarian and Italian allies.

[John Doe]

@Hello there It would not work like in case of Albania because two biggest ethnic groups Serbs and Croats had already formed hard national and ethnic indentity. So it was imposible idea from the start. Maybe and thats maybe if Serbs created Serbia that incorporited Bosnia and Macedonia they could serbinized local Muslim and Macedonian population because they did not had strong national and ethnic identity back then. But in Yugoslavia they all went their own way.

[Erik B]

@Praefectus This way it would last even less and separation would be even bloodier..

[Charles-Hubert Riverin]

do you have the source for your Horace Rumbold quote? I would very much like to read the full texte Thanks for the video, very educationnal

[Alin Alexandru]

About Romania, aside from what was already pointed out by others: - First note would be that you show the Danube Delta as occupied by the Central Powers. They never took control of it! Their attacks were stopped by the Romanian Navy and they never crossed into the Delta. You probably know it from that West Point map, but it's wrong. If you check original maps you'll see. - Romania was in the Centeal Powers' "sphere of influence" because Carol I was from a German family, and to defend against the Russians who were seen as a threat since 1878 (following the war of independence). For the same reason Romania built strong fortifications around Bucharest and the Focșani-Nămoloasa-Galați line, which was aimed at Russia. The pact signed with the CP was defensive again, against Russia, where if any nation were to be attacked (by Russia) all others would step in. But since Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia first, the country chose neutrality. - Romania didn't enter the war so opportunisticly, both sides wanted the country on their side, especially the Central Powers for its oil fields. After long negotiations with Entente who promised a fair representation at the peace talks (unlike in 1878), Romania joined the war. But the talks took too long and Romania joined at a later date than planned. Even more, the CP knew Romania would join the Entente, but at a later date so it took them by surprise. - Romania was defeted so quickly in 1916 because it did not receive the promised support. The promosed support was another Russian offensive and an offensive at Salonika against the Bulgarians. Russia was also to send troops in Dobrudja to help, but they didn't send the ammount they promised and coordination between the two armies was bad (duh, see above). Only after the Romanian defeat in the 1916 campaing did the Russians see how critical Romania's position was. The animosity between the leadership of Russia and Romania still continued until the end of the war though.

[M]

You're wrong about Romania, the Entente promised the border up top the Tisa (all of Banat and important cities like Debrecen) and all of Transcarpathia, so no, it didn't get what it was promised.

[Yuri]

Never knew the reasons for Italy and Romania switching sides, had heard italy felt cheated but never the concrete details. Thanks.

[No Name]

@Heycidskyja It is said that English run fast because they hope to circumnavigate the globe and take the enemy in the rear!

[Heycidskyja]

@No Name It is said that Italy if ends a war on the same side then it must have switched sides twice!

[No Name]

Italy didn't change sides

[ROMÂN]

@gachiBASS We are not hungarians, in 1848 enemies with imperial austrians in 1867 best friends. Why they don't teach you in hungary about the Operation Margarette and Panzerfaust? Why you don't know about the radio transmision from 1944 of the war-criminal called horthy? This after Germany close double-sized hungary without being a single shot fired.

[gachiBASS]

Romania always betrays its alies its his habit..

[OpinionOfAMoose]

Great to see this video come out been looking forward to it for a while. Great job 👏👍

[notmyname]

Italy didn't enter the war against popular opposition, people were literally attacking the houses of politicians demanding the government to enter the war. Surely many peasants or other people were against the war but sayng it was against popular will is just untrue.

[Stylesheet RA]

@Emperor Kane the problem was the peace deal, not the war in general, which is the reason why one of the first thing Italians did in the interwar period was invading a city that was deemed italian

[G S]

@Emperor Kane We completed our national unity, so it was worth the sacrifice for generations.

[notmyname]

@Old Britannia thank you for the reply, i understand what you are sayng and i just wanted to point it out Couse there is a large spread ignorance on italian history in the two world Wars fueled by memes and stereotypes.

[Emperor Kane]

Italian citizens in 1915: "If we do not join the war we will attack your houses!" Italian citizens in 1918: "This war is ruining the country and we have lost thousands of our fathers and sons! Why did this happen?"

[MisterClean]

@Old Britannia it was the politicians who were against the war, the people along with the King were largely in favour.

[Thirty Thousand]

Romania’s claim to stretch all the way to the Tisza river was truly a stretch lol

[shaquille.oatmeal.]

Great content you should really make content about napoleon iii and the second French empire

[HillBilly]

Brilliant work. Have been watching the playlist. Excellent. Cheers from Tennessee

[Strannika]

Finally! Thanks for making this series!

[Milan Stamatovic]

Always the forgoten Montenegro :D we were small, but we fought as well! Great video.

[Milan Stamatovic]

@Old Britannia could you share what you discovered in your research? It would be really interesting to know.

[Old Britannia]

Ah I’m so sorry, was on the list but I decided to cut it. If I make a third part I’ll be sure to include it.

[Wictoriono]

Thanks for this video, was looking towards this one since the first part.

[Sergeant Major Gross]

Subscribed because of your nice maps and quotes you add for context.

[I will trap justin Y]

Funfact: any time france and UK said "I think its the best if we draw the borders" it ended up in a disaster *ww1 is a good example*

[Frog/Life S]

@I will trap justin Y WW1 started with Austria Hungary declaring war on Serbia and Serbia Being backed up by Russia.

[I will trap justin Y]

@Ömperial lmao at least we are not the ones who lost a war in 46 days, enslaved half of africa, surrendered 5 times in a century and still wonder why everyone hates them You entente fanboy thinks the peace treaties were fair but just to remind you that English was created by us and that france was technically established by us

[Ömperial]

@I will trap justin Y Yeah, as far as I remember the Entente wasn't the one who declared war on France, invaded through Belgium and moreover sought to inflame tensions by having a naval arms race and preplanning for an outbreak of a World War. No one wonders why WW2 happened, it's quite evident. I am simply saying that the peace terms were rational but old enmity existed that tore up Versailles. Boohoo the losers lost some territory (that aren't ethnically theirs) and had to pay reparations in name only, it's better than the result of WW2.

[I will trap justin Y]

@Ömperial yea "defend" themselves But later they cry because ww2 still happened and are wondering why

[Samito]

I was waiting for this part for REALLY long. Glad it came

[TheToasterGod]

What about Portugal? Sure they didn’t have many goals but I heard one was relating to the Ovamboland

[captain 27]

There is a error Italy was able to anter Austrian territory at the and of the war, Italy olso was promes a lots more then what in the video is show, in fact all of the croecian cost and Montenegro were promesse. This is the rison why Italy felt cheated at the and. Most importantly inglamd instead of helping a ally necione they wanted alll the money back that they give to Italy during the war.

[Lucid]

Very accurate, especially the maps.

[Георги Паскалев]

Ehhhh come on, the entante could have offered us bit more and persuade us to join them. Bulgarian forces would have been a game changer had we been given a better offer.

[Александър Георгиев]

The Bulgarian one is not quite true. We didn't want that much of Serbia, just the parts where there was Bulgaria majority. The Serbian territory given to Bulgaria in this video was actually occupied by Bulgaria, but only because Austria-Hungary couldn't do that itself.

[f. monke]

Serbia claimed territory well beyond the London Treaty borders - which include a half of Albania which Serbia would have gotten. It would have also lost territory according to treaty, the same territory that was captured in the fighting against the Bulgarian occupators. That is why the treaty was never talked about after the war, because Yugoslavia was already a concept that the West had forced us to go with, after they saw the 1915 occupation and complete failure to end the war as soon as possible - because that’s the only situation in which Serbia could have expanded its territory to create a majority Serbian State for the first time since the Middle Ages. The Serbs were not fully satisfied with their future land gains, neither was Italy. That is why the treaty itself was not proposed to Serbia itself. It was meant to be a secret treaty that would end the power era of Austria-Hungary, which the Allies would have forced Serbia to accept in case victory in the awaited successful Balkan campaign.

[milos bogunovic]

commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_Serb_population,_1862,_H._Thiers.png

[Turkish Emir]

I wonder what Enver was truely thinking when he decided to involve the ottomans into the war: it was a disaster waiting to happen that led to immense suffering and destruction in the middle east. Even today the region still feels the fallout :(

[OttomanEnthusiast]

Enver is also to blame for the Ottoman Empire's less than good performance against russia. He commanded the army to disaster in the caucasus. They performed a lot better fighting the british without him.

[Hyperboreanbeliver]

middle east was better when turks were in mongolia :(

[Yarp Yarp]

@Dersu the germans were the only force able to win the war . The germans defeated the russians alone and fought against all of france and uk at the same time. Not germanys fault that Austria and ottomans were incompetent

[Dersu]

He trusted germans too much.

[Atakan Payman]

As mentioned in the video, he believed the victors would partition the Empire after the war. Plus he believed the Germans would be victorious.

[Sergeant Major Gross]

What was Portugals reason or territorial claims to join the war? I know they are the oldest allies of Britain but after the pink letter incident I’m surprised they didn’t try to connect their colonies in Africa.

[OttomanEnthusiast]

They didn't join the war, Germany declared war on them

[nikoxxv]

as the long waited sequel, i want now the ww2 war aim

[Lodestar15]

Great video! Nice breakdown.

[Exnem]

Dobruja is still a sticking spot for Bulgarians I have heard. Great video.

[Prepare your painis]

Could be interresting to do the same with ww2

[Slug Reacts]

1 Mistake: Yugoslavia didn't form by Serbia getting lands in the Peace treaties. De-Jure lad of Serbia at the time was liberated by Enetnte forces while Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia (all part of Austro-Hungary) united and seceded as the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. After the war Serbia, SCS and Montenegro officially united as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, later renamed to Yugoslavia. Edit: Roamnia wasn't just given Bessarabia, the Bessarabian Governorate seceded from collapsing Russia during the February Revolution as the Moldavian Democratic Republic, almost immediately it joined Romania and a bit of time later it was fully annexed into Romania with Romanian troops fully entering the region.

[Slug Reacts]

@Universal Conquest hey did not fire bullets against A-H troops as the empire was gone, something needed to fill in the vacuum of power in the land, the State of SCS was a pan-slav state, supportive of the United Yugoslavia cause, being one of the steps to it's establishment.

[Universal Conquest]

Croatians, Slovenians, and Bosnians did not fire one bullet against Austro-Hungary in the name of liberating themselves; they only served in the Austro-Hungarian army firing bullets against Serbia. Serbia liberated the entire territory of Yugoslavia because there was large a Serbian population living in these territories.

[Slug Reacts]

@borba Banat was it's own republic. Also I am not saying that they "Controlled" it I am saying their declaration of Independence included these areas, and they claimed them.

[borba]

@Slug Reacts no, they didn't, Srem, Bačka, Banat, Baranja, Montenegro and more than half of Bosnian municipalities diretcly joined Serbia thus not accepting the so called SCS state

[Slug Reacts]

@borba I did not mean "Official recognised land" SCS had a government for 1 and a half months in Zagreb and De-Jure all of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Istria. Serbia recognised SCS officialy.

[Orso Bartholomew]

I feel like the section about Italy doesn't really provide an objective description of the role played by Italy during WW1 and the Entente perception of their war contribution. First off, the idea that Britain and France had to keep Italy fighting by sending a somewhat significant number of their troops to the Italian front after Caporetto is simply false, there were no French or British divisions on the Italian front when the Austro-German Army was first stopped at the Battle of Monte Grappa, and there were just 5 during the second battle of the Piave River, which were mostly kept in reserve and obviously played a limited role compared to the 52 Italian ones. And what about the 7 German divisions which had to be moved from other theaters to the Italian one just a few moths prior? The fact that German had to deploy a relatively large number of divisions at Caporetto compared to the planned scale of the operation (the Austrian deployed just 8) to avoid an early Austrian collapse is something that should be worth mentioning. Regarding the idea that France and Britain felt that the Italians didn't deserve the territories which they were promised due to their poor "performance" during the war (basically they spent years launching one costly offensive after another before going on the defensive after Caporetto), skimming over the the fact that this sounds almost comical today considering what the war was like on the Western front, it must be said that while it's understandable that many French and British diplomats felt this way, especially after Cadorna had literally accused a part of his own troops (a whole Army corps) of cowardice in his war bulletin after Caporetto, blaming them for his incompetence and making this absurd idea spread through the press worldwide, this doesn't really give you the full picture of what were the major causes of the outcome of the conference. The problem is that the public perception of Italy's participation in the war doesn't really explain anything about the actual strategic reasons the other Entente powers had to keep Italy from getting most of what they wanted. Namely, the fact that Wilson's 14 points clashed with the idea of Italy controlling the Dalmatian coast and other majority slavic territories and could have easily led to the Slavic states getting out of the Entente grasp during the confusing post-war period of strife and civil wars. Other than that, it must be noted that French and British interests and strategic aims had changed significally since 1915. Especially considering the fact that with a united Southern Slavic state having emerged from the war, it was now possible to prevent Italy from gaining full control over the Adriatic Sea and the Danube commercial traffics. And to briefly mention the bizzarre and arrogant requests of the Italian delegation, which were another cause of the results of the Paris peace conference, the Italians literally asked France to cede most of their equatorial African possessions to Italy in order to connect their colony in Libya with German Kamerun, or alternatively to cede them their holdings in the Horn of Africa (which would have meant giving Italy control over the Bab-el-Mandeb), and when these and other requests weren't granted, they simply left the conference altogether, causing the collapse of the Italian government at home. Regarding the idea of Italy not being a "Great Power" at the beginning of the XX century. I think that giving an objective judgment on this subject is simply not possible if we keep considering this "Great Power" status, a somewhat abstract concept often based on the subjective judgment of culturally biased XIX-XX Century British diplomats and historians, as a product of a (non-existing) objective method. Today quantitative measurements can be easily applied to modern and contemporary history, so if we measure some factors which clears distinguished the so called "Great Powers" (ex. raw resources, manpower, industrial capacity, fleet, diplomatic weight...) I would say that Italy seems to be much closer to the other so called "Great Powers" than to Greece, Romania or Bulgaria, and seeing them and the Ottomans grouped with those minor countries today looks a bit prejudiced.

[Stylesheet RA]

Like the US ambassador in Italy (Thomas Nelson Page) said: "The story was published in the countries of the Allies that Italy was saved by the British and French contingents sent to her relief, and this has become the generally accepted story. It is not a correct statement of fact. That the relief promised and sent to Italy had a great moral effect in stiffening the Italian morale is undoubted, and, possibly, this has not been sufficiently recognized in Italy. But the fact is, that the fighting that was done on the Piave at that time was done by the Italians themselves" Basically Uk and France tried to get all the merits

[Matheus H]

🙏🏻

[Luca Esposito]

@Orso Bartholomew diglielo 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[Orso Bartholomew]

​@Old Britannia Thank you for the reply, after watching the video again I can see what you mean. However, I still think that the decision to include such harsh quotes and spend such a large portion of the video talking about a relatively marginal factor in the outcome of the conference, such as Italy's military reputation, rather than the way more important strategic, diplomatic and political causes was not a good choice.

[Marco]

@Old Britannia ok got it, but your answer seemed a little opinionistic on certain themes(maybe it’s just my impression), sure those people said what they said but it seemed a bit out of context and one sided without the objective reality of what happened, though in that case the video would maybe need a serious lengthening and a title change, so I guess that’s comprehensible considering the time and work put in the video I’ll apologize for my tone and the misunderstanding then

[Zirojević88]

You are right about Serbia, I can say that since I am Serbian. Not only did Serbia had horrific loses in the war, but it also invested it's victory in Yugoslavia, which turned out to be the greatest mistake of our entire history.

[zmajooov]

@ivan kopernika dude, krokodil isn't good, lay off the stuff

[ivan kopernika]

@zmajooov i bet you do. Oh i bet i do also cross your mind, you cross mine too! You cross my mind many times during my day, in fact you don't leave my mind. Every time i try not to think about you i start to feel as i start to get shivers whilst feeling warmer than ever before. All i seem to think about is you and your unquestionably God-tier skills in putting a little belarussian tatar in his place with facts and logic omg

[zmajooov]

@ivan kopernika yeah, maybe you do cross my mind sometime, at which point i will have a solid laugh, so thank you for that

[Max Scharnhoff]

Very good video I also really like the map style

[Winston Churchill]

As someone who is an italophile (is that what you’d call it? I don’t know? It’s annoying to see Italy scoffed at and made fun of like Machiavelli supported Italian unification so that wouldn’t be the case and they wouldn’t be seen as weak.

[Gabriele Salera]

@Old Britannia actually that is... exactly what it happened. The last Italian PM before ww1 (and leader of one of the biggest politcal parties at that time) knew full well how badly the army was, so much so that he had a strictly neutral policy after the Libia campaign. But that was him. Not the next PM. He was pressured by the public opinion (and by overestimating the army's capabilities) to declare war. Which Giolitti (the PM before him) was rightly mad about. Oh and also the king threatened to abdicate if there wasn't the parliament' majority support for the war, cause no way he was going to bring the country into the war without that. All of this because the Italian foreign minister promised to the Entante to go to war before parliament's approval. Yep Italian politics in that period were wilde

[Bardas]

@Old Britannia Italy's problems were a class of generals who still thought in the old way, attached to the ideals of a nineteenth-century war that was no longer used. Moreover (even if not like in ww2) the Italian army was not yet ready and above all it had a lower level equipment than the Austrians. Finally, the geographical advantage of the Austrians was overturned on the Piave river after Caporetto, since now it was the Austrians who had to attack the Italian positions (better positioned).

[Old Britannia]

Oh I certainly agree. I think the video may come off as slightly harsher than I intended. As I said they were always going to have a torrid time trying to break through the alps. Seems to me part of the problem was Italian statesmen grossly over exaggerated the nations ability. So whilst the contribution in WW1 was substantial, the Entente felt short changed when it wasn’t war winning. Even so it’s hard not to have sympathy with how they were shafted at Versailles.

[Georgios_]

I'm a simple man. I see Eleftherios Venizelos, I click. By the way, amazing video, very in depth work.

[Georgios_]

@Ottoman Empire Yeah, that's true. But Venizelos wasn't in charge of Greece during the Greco-Turkish war, so it's kinda unfair to think of him as "worse" than Ataturk. Venizelos was deposed in 1920 by the monarchists and a pro German king Constantine returned to the throne, after the pro-Venizelos regent Alexander was bit to death by a monkey. A monkey that cost Greece dearly, as the royalists decided to do the exact opposite of the Venizelos level headed policy. Instead of tolerating Muslims, they burnt villages. Instead of cooperating with allies, they turned them against us. Instead of pushing diplomatically and retaining the majority Greek lands from the Ottomans, the royalists decided to go full on to Ankara for the restoration of the Byzantine Empire, essentially erasing Turkey. At that point the French and Italians reacted very negatively, and essentially sided with Turkey from late 1921 and on. After the Anatolian Catastrophe in September 1922, the royalists were deposed by angry mobs all over Greece, and also by the dissatisfied military, which was returning from Anatolia. The top 6 royalists were executed (Trial of the Six) and king Constantine fled to Italy. It was only then that Venizelos returned, in 1923, signed the treaty of Lausanne and tried to maintain good relations with Turkey. Venizelos only wanted to unify Greek lands, not conquer Turkish ones, and that's why after the Greek genocide and population exchange, he wanted friendly relations with Turkey. That's all.

[Xristos Poulis]

@ykdm1011 its funny to think that bith greece's and turkey's best modern leaders were in power at around the same time and died a few years apart. Venizelos died in 1936 and ataturk in 1938.

[Xristos Poulis]

@Old Britannia if you are interested in learning more about venizelos you could search about the revolts in crete for independence. He was essentially the sole reason that crete united with greece

[Ottoman Empire]

@Georgios_ He was arguably the Ataturk of the Greeks, both leaders rivaled each other in a way during the Greco-Turkish War and after the war, both countries ceased their tense relations and began to normalize. Greetings from Turkey, Γείτονας!

[Ottoman Empire]

@Old Britannia I think many of us can agree that Venizelos was indeed a bright leader for Greece and Hellenic Nationalism but Ataturk was one step ahead of him in every move that have occured during the Greco-Turkish War.

[TZNWYVUK]

Serbia lost around 25% of its whole population not just mobilised population.

[Practical Theory]

You forgot to say how much the French military mission helped Romania to reform its army.

[ANDREI]

🇲🇳🇲🇳🇲🇳

[Shiners]

Can’t wait to watch! Edit:Amazing video!!!

[Doc Ock]

Next time: The War Aims of Each Nation...but in WWII 😁

[KJX11]

I hear you got a better mic, much better quality. Good video!

[Old Britannia]

Haha thank you, audio quality is honestly the bane of my life. I have absolutely no idea what I’m doing with anything in the back end. Maybe one day it will actually be passable.

[Peter Bound]

Funny how you define Italy as a ‘minor country’

[Heycidskyja]

How so?

[Casteddu]

Say what you want of each country's performance but I find it hypocritical from the entente to deny Italy the land they were promised with the excuse they were not as effective as hoped, despite keep fighting until the very end, while tripling Serbia's size despite them being entirely occupied by the central powers. I am of course not trying to insult neither Italy nor Serbia but this feels very much like a double standard, and in the end it was since France really wanted to avoid Italy from being hegemonic over the Adriatic, thus allowing Serbia to have Dalmatia. By the way interesting video

[Casteddu]

@ OttomanEnthusiast I do not doubt that It still is hypocritical to triple the size of a country that got itself completely occupied like the third year of the world, with the excuse of the "self determination" principle despite the fact that half the territories they were given weren't ethnically their, and then deny a country that basically fought alone the land it was promised over the same principle. I'll explain myself better Croatia and Dalmatia, while having both Italian and Serbian minorities, were neither Italian nor Serbian So it's hypocritical to grant them to a country like Serbia that capitulated, instead of the country that fought 4 years completely alone, Italy, by using as an excuse the self determination principle for both. With this being said I do not want to cause backlash with the Serbs, my comment was against the hypocrisy of France and Britain but of course we also do have to take account of the Italian peace commission's incompetence in leaving the discussion in protest, expecting the other countries would care. Italy always had, with few exceptions, mediocre politicians

[No Name]

@ OttomanEnthusiast It's debatable AH would have died anyway. Germany is the country who couldn't beat Russian army...

[OttomanEnthusiast]

@Casteddu though i do agree after losing so many people it would be understandable to want the land you were promised, but the times were different since 1915 when it came to making peace because of wilson unfortunately

[OttomanEnthusiast]

@Casteddu the difference is austria would have died with or without italian intervention while the germans would have been hard to crack if the usa didn't get involved. Their involvement in the war contributed nearly nothing but hundreds of thousands of pointless casualties.

[Casteddu]

@ OttomanEnthusiast the Italian front was as stale as the franco-german one, not to mention the fact the Italians and Austrians both had to deal with the Alps The reasons why Italy was not granted the lands it was promised were France not wanting the italians to hold too much influence in the Balkans and Wilson's 14 ass points.

[jon]

2:08 really? The rest of the Entente basically served as cannon fodder throughout the war while the real defeat of the central empires was the Piave/ Mt. Grappa victories done by the Italians. Muh Caporetto is hilarious when you see angloids and frogs squirm and squeal at the words "Marne", "Verdun", "Gallipoli", etc.. We won the war IN Austria, they won it in in France, a few km away from Paris matter of fact.

[Stylesheet RA]

@jon i meant niche as "not having Mass appeal"

[jon]

@Stylesheet RA the dolomites were the harshest front of ww1. I wouldn't call it niche tbh.

[Stylesheet RA]

Tbh most people dont even know about ww1, let alone the Alpine front which is a niche in an already niche war (compared to ww2 obv)

[Heycidskyja]

Oh dear!

[NekiLik]

To all Italians out there I apologize for the mistake of Serbian politicians to take more land and form Yugoslavia. This not only brought a dark faith to the Serbs but the Italians as well. Lands should have been divided as per the 1915 London treaty.

[Engel]

@Biserka Stanisic "The Kingdom of Serbia, which was not present nor a signatory, was assigned: The Dalmatian Coast between the Krka and Stagno (Ston), including the Sabbioncello Peninsula (Pelješac), the port of Split, and the island of Brazza (Brač). The Kingdom of Montenegro, which was not present nor a signatory, was assigned: The Dalmatian Coast between Budua (Budva) and Stagno (Ston), including Ragusa (Dubrovnik) and Bocche di Cattaro (Boka Kotorska) but without the Sabbioncello (Pelješac) peninsula; The coast south to the Albanian port of Shengjin (San Giovanni di Medua). Also, but less precisely, Serbia was assigned[citation needed]: Bosnia and Herzegovina Syrmia Bačka Slavonia (against Italian objections) Some unspecified areas of Albania (to be divided among Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece). Italy insisted and the Allies agrees that the Adriatic Question, between Zara and Istria, should be settled after the war. Italy also insisted that Serbia should not be informed about the agreements. However, the Allies overruled that by sending an official note to Serbia on 4 August 1915, which confirmed the postwar territorial claims of Serbia and Montenegro." en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1915)

[Biserka Stanisic]

NekiLik, are you paid by Italian I Service to write such nonsenses. It is hard to believe that any of the member of The South Slavic nations could be naturally so mean /sly and serve foreign pretenders to our Lands.

[Engel]

"The Kingdom of Serbia, which was not present nor a signatory, was assigned: The Dalmatian Coast between the Krka and Stagno (Ston), including the Sabbioncello Peninsula (Pelješac), the port of Split, and the island of Brazza (Brač). The Kingdom of Montenegro, which was not present nor a signatory, was assigned: The Dalmatian Coast between Budua (Budva) and Stagno (Ston), including Ragusa (Dubrovnik) and Bocche di Cattaro (Boka Kotorska) but without the Sabbioncello (Pelješac) peninsula; The coast south to the Albanian port of Shengjin (San Giovanni di Medua). Also, but less precisely, Serbia was assigned[citation needed]: Bosnia and Herzegovina Syrmia Bačka Slavonia (against Italian objections) Some unspecified areas of Albania (to be divided among Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece). Italy insisted and the Allies agrees that the Adriatic Question, between Zara and Istria, should be settled after the war. Italy also insisted that Serbia should not be informed about the agreements. However, the Allies overruled that by sending an official note to Serbia on 4 August 1915, which confirmed the postwar territorial claims of Serbia and Montenegro." en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1915)

[Shubhang Jha]

Okay. This analysis is amazing. 😀😀

[Alper Türlü]

Nice video. Well done

[Fred Charles]

Got home paid off, auto paid off, gold, silver, crypto (on cold wallet storage), credit cards paid off, cash for emergencies, solar backup supply food, water, and most of all, Jesus ..and many priests on the batline. Investment is the key. Thank you Jeremiah. Peace be with you, your family and your cute doggie, Nugget.

[Cyricist001]

Britain: Promise everything, deliver nothing.

[François Cadieux]

That roast that Russia did against Italy is absolutely hardcore.

[Plutonian]

Do war aims of luxembourg next

[CobraGamingXD]

Watched the entire video while eating popcorn, the wait was worth it

[Micahistory]

great video once again

[Σπύρος Αυγέρης]

Τα Βαλκάνια είναι περιοχή όπου Περνει φωτιά 🔥 εύκολα. Μία ζωή πολέμων φτάνει πια Οχι αλά αίμα.

[Angrycabbage]

So most of these nations, in pursuit of glory power and prestige ended up defeated and humiliated. It really is a lesson of how the blind pursuit of power leads to disaster. Ps: Have been waiting long for this video. Was absolutely worth the waiting.

[アントワーヌ・ディベット]

@Alex Zero and France stood firmly against some of the US and UK’s resolves at Versailles? The commander in chief of all Entente forces was French (Foch), American troops were more of a liability (more died of disease after the war than of combat, classic American revisionism to make it look like they even fought, most troops arrived after the conflict ended) since they were trained and equipped, Rethondes and Versailles were signed in France, France recuperated most of the war indemnities. Taking large casualties isn’t « humiliated » you visibly dont understand the words you’re using, France won the war and was the major ally (took way more casualties, fought on more fronts and won more battles than the Brits), in fact there were more French troops on the Western front at any given moment than there were British troops around the world at its peak. Even Britain wanted its troops to be put under unified French control. So what’s humiliating is not winning the war, it’s hiding across the Atlantic and the Channel. What’s even more humiliating is being so openly ignorant about a topic and still waffling about it on KZbin comments, spreading lies. Be thankful the French won WW1, have a bit of gratitude for those who lost their lives fighting alongside you guys.

[Alex Zero]

@アントワーヌ・ディベット by the outcome. 1,5% of population is dead, industry/infrastructure destroyed (all 4 years war was going on French territory) , wargoals not achieved...USA and UK standed firmly against creation of buffer state between Germany and France and even annexation of Saar by France.

[アントワーヌ・ディベット]

@Alex Zero France won the war, was the dominant ally and carried the Entente, how were they humiliated ? More like they humiliated Germany

[RB]

@Alex Zero how the fuck was France humiliated

[Alex Zero]

Even victorious nation were humialated (Italy, France, Russia...)

[Patin173]

Portugal was too , pls can you do a video of it?

[Sufi Wati]

I will forever be indebted to you you've changed my whole life continue to preach about your name for the world to hear you've saved me froma huge financial debt with just little investment, thanks so much Mrs. Sophia

[luto]

I believe, that the Greek's Would've, perhaps annexed Bythina, under the Megali Idea, as per if they defeated the Turks, through a sucessful encirclement, Kütahya-Eskişehir. However, tensitively, they were promised Cyprus. If the Greeks were to get aportioned, (Joining the War in 1915).

[kkgg]

I unronically like the map of the Balkans on the thumbnail.

[The Arbiter]

Finally part 2 is there, much love from serbia 🇷🇸

[Muovi]

This channel is so good

[DoctorDeath147]

For Part 3 maybe we could get Japan, USA, Belgium, and Thailand.

[Ayankhan Ayankhan]

Thailand wasnt in ww1

[ExplodingWolf Gaming]

Very based 10/10