Was WW1 Pointless? - War Goals Of Every Major Nation

[@TheGreatWar]

Support us and get 40% off Nebula: go.nebula.tv/the-great-war Watch 16 Days in Berlin on Nebula: nebula.tv/videos/16-days-in-berlin-01-prologue-the-beginning-of-the-end?ref=the-great-war

[@Rimpelmans]

I would, if Nebula offered a yearly subscription I could purchase via Ideal or PayPal. Right now that doesn't seem to be the case, only a lifetime $300 membership is purchable via those means. :( Anyway, great content and I will continue watching your channel on KZbin.

[@superchug2469]

Could you please do 1812 if possible

[@jessealexander2695]

@@superchug2469 We did Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 on the Real Time History channel.

[@superchug2469]

@@jessealexander2695 sorry i meant the American war of 1812.

[@wackeyful]

Nebula is defintely worth it

[@DLYChicago]

There was one, very major result of WW1, and that was the absolute gutting of the European monarchies. At the end of the War the Hapsburgs, Hohenzollerns, and Romanovs were all gone forever. The English aristocracy continued its decline, and Turkish nationalists abolished the Sultanate.

[@JustAPintOfMilk]

fun fact, many of the noble families are still around and the "head" of the habsburgs tried, a few years ago, to reinstate the noble appendixes to the noble surnames. ("von" Habsburg, "zu" Pappenheim, "von" Hohenzollen, idk if the appendixes are right...) Because that is illegal in Austria since after WW1. Well nobody cared about it and his small part to cause any political involvement died right there.

[@JustAPintOfMilk]

fun fact, many of the noble families are still around and the "head" of the habsburgs tried, a few years ago, to reinstate the noble appendixes to the noble surnames. ("von" Habsburg, "zu" Pappenheim, "von" Hohenzollen, idk if the appendixes are right...) Because that is illegal in Austria since after WW1. Well nobody cared about it and his small part to cause any political involvement ended right there.

[@thkempe]

The Dutch kept their monarchy, the Belgians, the Luxembourgers, the Scandinavians and of course the British. Politicians today promote multi-ethnic societies instead of nation states. The Habsburg Monarchy was such a multi-ethnic state. Almost everyone tried to destroy it.

[@JustAPintOfMilk]

@@thkempe to be fair A-H was dominated by a Austrian and a Hungarian elite and had a highly disfunctional political system, which caused most of its unrest. Blessed Carl tried to reform this at the end of the war, which is stated in the video. But i am also not sure what your point on this is, because a modern example of a functional multi-ethnic democracy would be the USA, which has its own problems, but is a better example of a multi-ethnic state as it doesnt have those A-H related problems.

[@loremastertimmy4048]

this was wilsons big thing, there was a big issue about being allied with russia, wilson saw the czar just as bad, if not worse, then austria and germany, lucky for him the bolsheviks would deal with that right as the us entered the war

[@johnallen6254]

I like to cause sheer chaos amongst groups of fellow history nerds by finding the opportunity in conversations to drop the “whose fault is WW1?” question. Then I sit back and watch the war break out

[@samarkand1585]

Germany, chiefly

[@MateusAntonioBittencourt]

Russia... the end.

[@enzobuso5933]

Who declared war first? The rest is just domino effect

[@sakonaga1]

Russia, they were the first to mobilize.

[@alsob1062]

Churchills, the same goes for the second World War.

[@arturocavendish6859]

Ironically I’d say it did most to start or further independence movements of smaller nations which would materialize decades later.

[@bartuomyej]

True that, but Austro-Hungary were set to collapse or at the very least, federalize and give more autonomy to, which would in turn also start crystallization of national states in the middle/east europe. Dare I say this course of action could be a little more peaceful, because at the end of ww1 you had like 10-12 new countries spawned from the fires of war and kindling empires, and they all had claims for their neighbors territories.

[@emelgiefro]

​@@bartuomyejcontrary to popular belief A-H was stable. The federalization was a trigger because Serbia would lose its claim on the other south slav lands. The most loyal supporters of the A-H empire in fact were Bosniaks and Croats. There was also a tripartide solution that was signed into reality by blessed Karl IV but in reality the war was lost in the end

[@ReichLife]

Like what nations? Austro-Hungary could just as much federalize, Russia would have never allow seperate Ukraine or Belarus which national identities were reinforced in 20th century only thanks to federal nature of USSR. At best you would see small Poland, Caucasus and Central Asia nations getting treatment similar to what Western Powers did with theirs' African colonies.

[@mnemonija]

@@bartuomyej you mean like israel and two state solution?

[@vandalcreed]

​@@bartuomyejyes it was dying but would of it happened decades later? Or still some semblance today performing in the Olympics? If it broke apart in a civil war would've that sparked a ww anyway if Germany and Russia tried to get a slice of the pie, which I'd imagine they would do to expand their empires/spheres of influence. Interesting what ifs though.

[@sayville_silver]

Its crazy that we're still living through the vibrations of the first WW. In Europe, in the middle east.. it makes me take a whole new perspective on history and the way these nations view themselves.

[@justice4549]

Crazy that people think events that happened over 100 years ago don’t affect us

[@paradoxicaloutcome1007]

Literally. The roots of both "big wars" currently happening can be traced back to WW1. The middle eastern one to the Balfaur Declaration and the McMahon-Hussein Correspondance, and the Ukraine one to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the Russian Civil War.

[@runajain5773]

​@@paradoxicaloutcome1007in older centuray always have historical connection same with french german border

[@vjbd2757]

"More than 60 million soldiers fought in "The War To End All Wars". It ended nothing. Yet it changed the world forever." - Battlefield One

[@Paciat]

It ended nothing because Britain decided not to enforce the Versal peace treaty and lead appeasement politics towards Germany. "This is not peace. This is an armistice for 20 years" - marshal Fredinand Foch

[@billyosullivan3192]

It was only said to be the war to end all wars in the English speaking world. For continentals it was not particularly unique. More french died in the Napoleonic wars

[@Radishindependent]

cool quote from a terribly inaccurate game

[@ChrisCrossClash]

@@Paciat It's the French and Germans fault this all started in the first place, over Alsace-Lorraine in the Franco-Prussian war.

[@imbored6440]

@@ChrisCrossClash The French didn't care about Alsace-Lorraine until after they were already well into the war. Before the war no one cared that much.

[@ahmedshaharyarejaz9886]

The fact that Franz Ferdinand was against such a war and yet his assassination set off the Great War is just sad.

[@thomasheskia7337]

A great insight, that Austria-Hungary actually achieved all of its war goals in 1917. That brings the peace efforts like the Sixtus affair into a new light. 17/18 was then a war against its own collapse.

[@TheGreatWar]

we'll soon cover Caporetto and the inter German-Austrian relationship

[@thomasheskia7337]

@@TheGreatWar Thank you very much. Being Austrian and having a degree in South Eastern European History I know that Austria-Hungary smashed Serbia and Russia was knocked out. Then there was the major breakthrough at the Isonzo front (though with support of the Germans) and of course this time would have been the ideal time stop the war. But of course there were different dynamics like the pressure of the Germans to continue, the effects of the Sixtus affair and the crackling Empire.

[@ffffuchs]

Yes, if you look at for example the original peace treaty with Romania, Austria-Hungary only demanded the handover of a few mountain passes, although did exert economic controll over the country.

[@theMosen]

I would argue that the Sixtus Affair proves Austria was willing to give up on its initial war goals by 1917. One of France's conditions, one that Karl in fact agreed to, was the reestablishment and independence of the Kingdom of Serbia.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

@@theMosen Karel himself seems to have been very much for a Status-Quo Ante-Bellum. The minimalist claims he wanted was territorial integrity but he did sign off on a maximalist claim which meant annexations in Romania although I am unsure how much as Germany was in control and it depended on war-participation. I think the best indication that he genuinely wanted peace is that he was willing to give the Germans Galicia and the rest of Poland if Germany agreed to give up Alsace-Lorraine (A totally disproportionate land transfer.) as the French wanted.

[@PopcornChicken99]

Thanks for the quality content

[@NankerPhelge65]

thanks for the great chicken !

[@Andyliberty0923]

It did make war less popular and less “honorable” in a sense. Its not seen as a glorious endeavor as the Napoleonic era so I wouldn’t say it was pointless. Just an important lesson for Humanity

[@KityKatKiller]

Yeah. It kinda showed the world exactly what Imperialism leads to. A decades long arms race, imperial ambitions that didn't really matter for the people, only for the rulers and whole lot of pain leaving everyone dissatisfied. The french didn't get what they want, the british were bancrupt, the Ottomans exploded and commited crimes that led to the invention of the term genocide, the Russians were in a revolution, Austria exploded and its individual bits erupted in infighting, Germany and Italy were on the way towards dictatorships. So I guess the winner of it all is clear: The swiss banks and the USA.

[@imperiumoccidentis7351]

@@KityKatKiller To be fair, wars had never been as devastating as WW1 before. It was a combination of industrial and mechanized warfare combined with a capitalist economic system that allowed for the mass-mobilization of millions of citizens in a way that was never possible before, which in turn lead to the mass-politics of communism and fascism after the war. Europeans perfected the art of war to the point that it was now impossible to wage a war profitably. Now, it's even more impossible with nuclear weapons.

[@Vysair]

@@imperiumoccidentis7351it was a blender powered by the new "modern" era

[@Superdavo0001]

​@@imperiumoccidentis7351 The war in Ukraine is arguably showing that even without nukes, it's very difficult to wage war profitably unless you're absolutely sure you have a colossal asymmetric advantage, and even then if you get that calculation wrong it'll destroy you. Militaries have become so complex, powerful & expensive that once you start taking any remotely significant losses you'll be down billions of dollars immediately trying to rebuild any significant gear, and the alternative of human waves will disproportionately devastate your army. Not to mention no matter what you do, a generally war-averse international order will sanction your economy & hinder you at every turn.

[@roboticchat8450]

​@@Superdavo0001And it's not like you can use cheaper equipment, you have to use the best, or you will struggle massively, as Ukraine is showing us.

[@davidkoster]

I really love that you make videos about topics not only related to the battle field but also the motivation of each countries, thank you for this amazing work

[@freetolook3727]

War has the unintentional consequence of advancing technology at the time in an accelerated pace.

[@avgperson6551]

Necessity breeds innovation.

[@csmth96]

The bigger effect is wars drive evolution of organic ideas (which exclude ivory tower ideas) by extinction of outdated or non-adoptive ideas. It acts like mass extinction event in species evolutions. Human will not be evolved if the dinosaurs are not wiped out, despite quite accidentally. But we also need dinosaurs, so that our earlier ancestors could evolve into mammals with placenta. Without mass extinction, there will little or no diversity of species. Without major wars, we do not have diversity or explosion on organic ideas. Everything is status quo and not much evolution (reference: the end of history by Fukuyama).

[@raaaaaaaaaam496]

not really

[@freetolook3727]

Airplane technology advanced thirty years in the space of four years of war. Each side looks for an advantage at an accelerated pace. Just look how far drone technology has advanced during the war on Ukraine.

[@TheReaIist187]

This entire channel is literally like a breathe of fresh air when it comes to war related content

[@gcash8892]

how is it "fresh"? its just more anti-german propaganda.

[@qasemsoleimani9443]

Hey guys, just a small correction, in around 6:40 you mixed up the pictures of the three pashas and specifically Djemal's with Talaat's. Cheers and great video as usual!

[@ZergBert1]

Ironically, the organization that lit the fuse did achieve its goal (at least in a rough sense). The Black Hand was formed with the goal of unifying the territories populated with a South Slavic majority free of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. By assassinating Archduke Ferdinand, the Black Hand initiated a "series of events" (a.k.a. WWI) -- albeit far beyond that which was intended -- that led to the formation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (a.k.a. Yugoslavia) in 1918.

[@Monophtalmos]

The only major player aiming for war with clear goals was France. The goal was revenge for 1871.

[@Muskotron]

I’d say italy had clear goals too, the Adriatic coast

[@samrevlej9331]

Eh, not really. Revanchism against Germany had pretty much died out in France by the 1890s. Nationalists might still have been bitter and postured with speeches about the return of the "lost provinces", but not a whole of people in France wanted war by 1914. The return of Alsace-Moselle (and not Alsace-Lorraine, as only the Moselle part of Lorraine had been annexed) was more of an opportunity the government jumped on rather than the cause of the war.

[@mauriciotejada886]

@@samrevlej9331 the region was originally German. France stole it and when Germany recovered it in 1871, the French government used revanchism for the "lost" province just as a political manouvre. But as you say, manay people didn't agree. Even until today, the region speaks German

[@juliocesarcasaspietrini1146]

h men I love you soo much. Since "world at war" you're the best documentary about wars ever made. doing the first war is capital. thanks for all!

[@aprince1250]

Another great video as always, guys. I love your WW1 videos. If more people understood the importance of the conflict, they would have a greater understanding of all the issues we still face because of it today. On a side note, have you made a video specifically focused on Britain's decision to enter the war? If not, I would be interested to see one. I repeatedly see the violation of Belgium's neutrality as the sole/primary reason for Britain's entry but have also seen arguments that this was also just an easy excuse for them to join against Germany, and that their intent was likely/always to join with France and Russia regardless. Would love to see a detailed video breaking all of this down. Thanks again for all of your hard work!

[@Elongated_Muskrat]

Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Ottoman Empire all collapsed so it certainly wasn't pointless, but not exactly productive for the "victors".

[@tkm238-d4r]

In a wider sense, Germany and Russia continued. The post-WW1 territorial loss created unhappiness but in a wider sense, it was not enough to significantly change the existential status of the country. The biggest loser was Austria-Hungary. In simple terms, it was wiped out of existence. The Ottoman Empire definitely became a Turkish state, something which the Kurds never truly adjusted to it.

[@PancakeProduct]

British were bankrupted. French were mentally scarred.

[@augustin5611]

Germany didn't collapse

[@quedtion_marks_kirby_modding]

The USA became the world's financial hegimon because of it so....

[@snowbear163]

Japan made out pretty well. People got to create Poland. Lots of people won huge.

[@jso6790]

I am a Nebula member and have seen 16 Days in Berlin. It is EXCELLENT as all content from "The Great War" is. The documentary on the Franco-Prussian War (Glory and Defeat) was also pretty cool!

[@jonathanallard2128]

You guys are friggin awesome. These documentaries are food for my passion about war history.

[@markhough1027]

Be great too see a video on Ireland and smaller countries got out of the war

[@danielcreamer9669]

I would be very interested to see a video on how popular the wars were in each of these countries. I don't think it is a coincidence that the countries that survived the war were more democratic.

[@tkm238-d4r]

No reliable historical info that popularity of the war among the people had something to do with internal political systems. Britain and France had more liberal political systems but if not for Germany fighting a war on 2 fronts with non-liberal Russia, the political liberals would have almost certainly lost. The liberal US was not significantly involved until late 1917/early 1918. Furthermore, non-liberal Turkey managed to sort of turn the tide against non-liberal Russia at around the same time. As for Italy, Austria-Hungary, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece etc, the extent of liberal governance is something we can agree to disagree. In simple terms, non-liberal Russia played an important role in continuing the liberal war effort.

[@danielcreamer9669]

@tkm238-d4r I certainly didn't mean to imply that the war contributions of any of the less liberal nations were not significant. I merely note that the liberal governments survived the pressure of the war and the autocratic ones did not.

[@piuthemagicman]

​@@danielcreamer9669As a Finn, that seems ridicilous to conviniently not mention the Soviets... The Soviets ran a horrible oppressive dictatorship!

[@korbell1089]

@@piuthemagicmanThey did run an oppressive dictatorship, but it was Tzarist Russia that didn't survive WWI. I think that is why they weren't mentioned.

[@komodosp]

It's like Edmund Blackadder said... it was too much effort _not_ to have a war.

[@mammuchan8923]

I am always eager for a new WWI video. There is still so much to learn, or reassess. It has just captivated my imagination completely and that will never change. Thank you Jesse and team for still making these WWI videos, it is much appreciated 👍

[@dayros2023]

Well it completely changed Europe borders and history. And the only countries that gained some territory that they still keep today are France that gained Alsace and Lorraine and Italy that gained Trento, Triest and the Tyrol.

[@dragosstanciu9866]

And Romania who gained Transylvania.

[@tkm238-d4r]

@@dragosstanciu9866 Thanks for reminding viewers. Much of WW1 history seemed to focus mainly on the Western Front, partly because it started and ended with the Western Front.

[@tkm238-d4r]

An irony that AL, which France had to give up to Germany after 1870-1871, therefore affecting relations, played at most a marginal role during WW1.

[@dragosstanciu9866]

Also Serbia who gained Vojvodina.

[@dayros2023]

@@dragosstanciu9866 well yes, but i was speaking about the major powers that they mentioned in the video.

[@jonbaxter2254]

WW1 broke the old ways of Europe, and replaced it with something I'm not sure was altogether better. If it never happened, I think overall we'd be in a better place today.

[@crocfighter.1322]

The problem was the "old ways" made such a war inevitable. If we could go back and create a democratic Germany and convince everyone to create the EU it would be better, but it took two World Wars to convince the Europeans that cooperation was in their best interests.

[@Johnsmith99663]

What’re the old ways you think were replaced with something just as bad, if not worse?

[@SnakeSalmon8izback]

ok boomer

[@albertmarnell9976]

The U.S. should have stayed out of it! Russia would have been finished off by 1918. We've been fighting the Russians ever since and destroying The German Empire left a vacuum for Hitler and National Socialism.

[@gabz2803]

history from the 7 years war tho played a big roll

[@tremendousbaguette9680]

The first first world war

[@billmozart7288]

Amazing work, Jesse and team!

[@pricklydingus8604]

Before and after, war seems pointless. During war, everyone is blind.

[@professorlayton8712]

Before and after commenting, the cringe seems overwhelming. Whilst typing the comment, the redditor smiles.

[@MultiKbarry]

What about the US Civil War? Was freeing people of slavery pointless to you?

[@JaMeshuggah]

​@@MultiKbarryset America back to this day, neglect diplomatic solutions that would've complimented industrial revolution, sow seeds of hate, and didn't effectively free anyone? Yeah it wasn't worth it.

[@oliverwortley3822]

@@MultiKbarryyes

[@MultiKbarry]

@@oliverwortley3822 The major point was stopping a breakaway state attempt to do an illegal action. It reaffirmed the unity of the USA.

[@nicholasbarton3184]

It's content like this that makes KZbin a better place, thank you for the incredible work

[@timteichmann6830]

My Research may be incomplete but it appears to me like Germany didnt have many goals for the war except preserving their Alliance with Austria-Hungary in the beginning. After a rising price of War (lives and resources) the aims grew in order to emerge stronger after the war rather than weaker than before.

[@leonfa259]

I still think that the main reason for the war was the goal containment on the UK side, they always allied and fought against the second strongest, first france then russia and then Germany in WW1. The same strategy the US took after they superseded the UK. It seemed like all major powers (except US) vastly over invested into the war severely weakening their Empires, UK and France lost many of their key colonies, Germany und Russia were rattled by revolts and revolution only the US really won by becoming the primary power.

[@OceanHedgehog]

Awesome video, as expected from an awesome channel.

[@jonathancampbell5231]

The Russian Civil War didn't really start until AFTER the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which took months to sign because the Bolsheviks kept dragging their feet, and was fought not just against the Whites but also against other radical Leftists who feared he was a German agent with the concessions he gave to the Germans seemingly proving it. Lenin's actual stated goal (at least in private) was not "peace", but to transform the Great War into a Class War with the workers and soldiers rising up against the monarchies, officers and capitalists of Europe and starting a continent-wide revolution, and he hoped that the Russia revolution would be the spark that lit the flame- it "almost" worked, but those revolutions didn't happen until after the war ended (far longer than Lenin would have liked) and they where they happened they were crushed by counter-revolutionaries.

[@MalikF15]

@@jonathancampbell5231 I’d say you have to be pretty arrogant to believe that but then I remember who Lenin was

[@johnbeechy]

Lenin did not really use workers as part of his revolution, as there was NO real working class inside of mother russia. it was mostly farmers. Lenin used mercs to handle the communications and bridges and then sure will to defeat the weaker russian opponents. myop no one has been able to figure out how to defeat russia entirely. at least not from the western borders. nappy, the german kaiser, adolf, the brits in the Crimean war. all for nothing. the white armies, as well, did not figure out the russian serfs were tied to the land and would never serve another master. whether or not Lenin knew the end of ww1 would bring liberty to any one outside of russia, Lenin did not bring liberty to his own serfs. before workers can rise up out of their factory work, there has to be workers in factories, which there were not many of in russia. The british workers did rise up and slowly their Class system fell to the ground. it does happen when the members of the upper class get killed fighting a war overseas. Now r the days of many upper class not going to war, let alone wearing a loser uniform. eg: the gwbush team used Volunteers to solve their needs for soldiers in their two loser (without evidence of wmds in iraq, no bin laden in afghan land after Nov 2001) wars. russians r now serve their master Putin. forced into service to fight in Ukraine, the russians are not well equipped to win any wars that be outside of their land mass. u take care during these days of when members of the lower classes (from more than one nation) assume they know more than the middle or upper classes.

[@thecolorblue9609]

@@MalikF15 Communism was a huge movements across Europe at the time, with the majority of European countries (even neutral ones) seeing pro-Communist attitudes, especially Germany. Had even just the German Revolution succeeded, the Socialist states that popped up would have been much better off, considering Socialism wouldn't be nearly as isolated or have a lack of industrialization, as in our timeline.

[@blackore64]

Lenin's position can be hardly called a 'secret', since it is nothing but the continuation of the position of the second international prior to 1914, which was to use the suffering caused by the war to advance the proletarian revolution and the hastement of the end of capitalism. While Socialist (also going by the name of social democrat) parties would in 1914, after previously agreeing on the conferences of the international to oppose war, end up supporting their respective governments, with German social democrats excusing themselves for war against Russian reaction, and French socialists against german militarism. Meanwhile, the real aims of these countries can be seen in this video. What we have here, is a bunch of thieves fighting over conquest and plunder. (Do not forget what these "gentlemen" were doing in their colonies during this era, or just domestically in many cases) These aims the socialist parties would impliciply sign themselves into supporting by agreeing to support their governments. Lenin's position internationally, regardless of the domestic policy (it's a mess) is absolutely understandable continuation of proletarian internationalist policy of the socialist international. And other socialists did understand Lenin's position and went on to become the first communists of the new international, which was seen as a clean up of socialist movement from traitors of the international working class, who had sold their workers to be slaugthered by the the ambitious plots of their countries' ruling cliques.

[@tkm238-d4r]

An irony that the Allies invaded their ally, which was politely recorded in Anglo-Western-centric history as intervention and not invasion.🙄🙄 Meanwhile, the Germans, who sort of supported Lenin, tried to enforce the Treaty but the Armistice effectively ended the Ost Plan. In this sense, the US was Lenin's biggest benefactor. US participation in the Western Front led to the Armistice which led to Germany having to withdraw involvement in Russia.

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

Another wonderful historical coverage episode was shared by an amazing RTH channel. The episode is about all partners of WW1 from both sides... each one of them had certain political prospectives, imperial ambitions, and war outcomes, and political negotiations changed their's demands .. extremely it was great work and evaluations...

[@EduardNita-k5y]

Failed to take into account other smaller nations, Romanians, Poles, Serbs, Czechs, Slovaks, Balts, etc. they were the big winners.

[@freetolook3727]

It was a family feud fought by cousins who had millions of men and money who played them like a game of chess.

[@therosen9923]

That and the bankers who wanted a bit more dosh and other vile reasons. History is never as it seems.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

It was not. Each country had war-aims based on geostrategy, economy and ideology.

[@alfred7846]

​@@johnnotrealname8168 Were the monarchs related?

[@johnnotrealname8168]

@@alfred7846 Some of them yes.

[@mauriciotejada886]

​@@alfred7846 The German Kaiser, British King and Russian Tsar were cousins. In fact, Kaiser Wilhelm mobilized in the July Crisis because he thought his cousin Nicholas wouldn't go to war against him. When Tsar Nicholas mobilized, he sent a letter to his cousin George VI, telling him that he was scared that these power demonstrations became out of their control. His letter specifically said "He feared the worst". Finally, when Wilhelm authorised the army to cross Belgium, he confessed to his generals that probably his cousing George wouldn't go to war against his family "only due to a paper" (the treaty with Belgium)

[@neonpowar3766]

babe wake up old brittian uploade- wait wrong channel

[@Paul-ft9dn]

Lol

[@ahmedshaharyarejaz9886]

Let me go back to sleep babe, I await for Old Brittania.

[@francoserrano8909]

Amazing video! A im a spanish speaker and i practice english with history videos like this. Thanks for everything!

[@Kastoraki]

You forgot to mention Bulgaria, Romania and Greece..... Bulgaria wanted territories that didn't gain during the Balkan's wars. Romania wanted Transylvania from Austrian-Hungary to form Romania Mare. Greece wanted to liberate ancestral lands in Thrace and the Minor Asia and create the Μεγάλη Ελλάδα.

[@beestrong]

Do you consider Bulgaria, Romania and Greece as major nations in WW1?

[@Kastoraki]

@@beestrong , I didn't notice the word "major" but I think that he should include these countries also, would be more complete. The Great War was seen also by some small countries as an opportunity to expand their territories and fulfil their dream of a greater nation.

[@Terter1551]

@@beestrongBulgaria can be considered at least very important. Military it was more successful than Austra-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. Germany valued the Bulgarian army a lot, and its participation was an absolute game changer in the eastern front.

[@Runo1923]

Greece was just a pariah of UK to be used against the Ottomans. Even their "monarch" imported from outside.

[@minuda]

​@@Terter1551Important yes, but more militarily successful is subjective. The successes of the Bulgarian military are more so relegated to their ability to intervene decisively against opponents of equal armaments who were concentrated elsewhere. Their offensives into Serbia and Romania were wildly successful because both nations had the majority of their forces lined up to oppose Austria-Hungary on defensable land. This is perhaps best proven with the Thessaloniki front, where Bulgaria remained unable to capture the peninsula even before official Greek entry into the war, and is also the first front that would result in a capitulation. Bulgaria may have had a large number of its population mobilized to fight, but when they did not possess the element of surprise, they proved unable to hold territory, much like the Ottomans, and somewhat like the Austrians.

[@dannyarcher6370]

The level of effort you put into name pronunciation is top tier. 👏🏻👏🏻

[@rexracernj7696]

I'm a history prof (mostly US history), this is a great, succinct account of the various motives. One item you might add would be the expectation of Russia's Bolsheviks that Europe would very soon erupt into Revolution, which they might assist with, so the concessions at Brest-Litovsk were thought to be temporary & long-term irrelevant.

[@an70n10_]

Us the ungrateful son of Italian fathers,discovered you yet you guys decided We should not get Italian territories

[@AustinsCoins]

Lenin made it a priority to make peace so that the Bolsheviks could focus on internal matters like consolidating power. Germany couldn't occupy the new territory effectively either because they had to shift their forces West in hopes of beating Anglo-French before the US arrived in big numbers. To Lenin, it was worth the risk to accept this harsh treaty. It paid off.

[@mihaylov131]

2:06 The map is incorrect. That's the border between Bulgaria and Serbia after the war - 2,563 km2 where given to Yugoslavia after Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine.

[@NankerPhelge65]

no one cares

[@NuortenHistoria]

@@NankerPhelge65 What do you mean by no one cares? Do you think these things shouldn't be corrected?

[@Jonesdude666]

@@NankerPhelge65 I care. And others will as well.

[@ericshasbeendoingstuffz]

​@@NankerPhelge65map accuracy matters, kid

[@VersusARCH]

WW1 was on one hand the late response to the German unification by most of the other great powers of Europe and on the other the final chapter of breaking up of the 2 sick men of Europe - The Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary. Except the fight was way tougher than expected and severely weakened the Entente powers economically and laid the foundation for the transformation of tzarist Russian Empire into the communist USSR (with some territorial losses).

[@spookerredmenace3950]

great video work as always

[@jessealexander2695]

Thanks!

[@WagesOfDestruction]

I am not so sure there were any war aims for many of the countries involved. The war broke out, and people started inventing reasons to justify their country going to war.

[@mito88]

there were treaties between countries, no need to invent reasons.

[@WagesOfDestruction]

@@mito88@mito88 What treaty compelled Russia to go to war? Certainly, nothing was there to compel Russia to attack Germany. Germany entered to support Austria-Hungary and pursue its own strategic goals. Although Britain used the Treaty of London of 1839 as a justification for war, this wasn't the primary reason for their involvement. France went to war because it was attacked by Germany, not because of a treaty. No treaty compelled these nations to fight.

[@loremastertimmy4048]

the thing is, it got to a point where so many people died, how else can you justify those deaths? the population would topple any government who would sign basically a white peace after millions and millions of dead, for that price you have to walk away with something other than "well they didnt win". this was a huge problem in any peace talks that would happen basically from 1916 on

[@loremastertimmy4048]

@@WagesOfDestruction although i agree with you there was actually treaties, some secret, the bolsheviks actually released one of these, basically a treaty saying that russia would gain constantinople, this was a huge propaganda win for the bolsheviks and they showed off, wether correct or incorrect that russia was fighting this war purely for imperial gain

[@WagesOfDestruction]

@@loremastertimmy4048 thjis agreement was signed after ww1 began

[@TheYired]

Excellent as always

[@JagerLange]

And one of the few KZbin history channels that can pronounce Brest-Litovsk consistently.

[@JinTeutonic]

Best litvsk

[@danielwoods404]

Wow. This is an info packed video.

[@versiable8041]

Great Video! Will there be a future video about how Kurdistan almost became a country/why Kurdistan didn't become a country after WW1? It's a huge part of modern Middle Eastern history.

[@bigsarge2085]

Fascinating, thank you!

[@Т1000-м1и]

Isn't it interesting that in my eastern euripean school program the Zimmerman telegram wasn't even mentioned

[@kevinhortachata9700]

I'd love to see a sequel to this video detailing the goals of smaller nations like Portugal, Bulgaria, Japan, China, etc

[@shawngilliland243]

Many Americans did not share Wilson's vision of the world order under the auspices of a League of Nations.

[@cordial001]

informative and interesting as always

[@bob_the_bomb4508]

The ostrich died in vain…

[@etherealbolweevil6268]

Indeed.

[@deep_boy6376]

This history Documentary drama is amazing.

[@odalv316]

Make Bulgaria great again!

[@KaDaJxClonE]

Make BulRomDova a regional power!

[@gumdeo]

Vardar Macedonia should rejoin the Bulgarian fatherland.

[@swatsaw6]

9:53 is that young count Dooku in the first row ? :D

[@tompegorinno5141]

All this started from a teenage nihilistic action of Gavrillo Princip.

[@Masada1911]

He was just an excuse. If it hadn’t been him it would have been something or someone else.

[@smoldoggy1005]

Central banking 🏳️‍⚧️🇮🇱 actually caused it

[@ReichLife]

@@Masada1911 If that was case the war would have errupted years earlier, like during Bosnian crisis or one of the Morocco ones. Just as much if it wasn't for delusions of Princip and others, powder keg would have actually stabilized. Russia industrialization would mean Germans would be to afraid to start war. All while British just as much would divorce from Entente with such rising Russia. Dreadnought race was over and relations between London and Berlin were starting to improving. Princip actions were done in worst possible time when war could have errupted in manner it did.

[@LB__1]

Years before thar event, Central Europe was called the powder keg of Europe. Princep was just the catalyst.

[@Edge51]

@@Masada1911 Also Germany and France were on an inevitable collision course over Alsace and Lorraine plus the humiliation in the Franco Prussian war still lingered. War was coming one way or another and surprisingly I think it took a lot longer than it should have. Europe had gone to war over way dumber reasons in the past just look at what started the Franco Prussian war.

[@hsugraduation2103]

8:49 He forgot to mention Rasputin's warning and the Tsar's tantrum.

[@christopherwang4392]

In an alternate timeline, war still breaks out between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, but Germany and Russia and the Great Powers stay out of the conflict. Nevertheless, Germany and Russia continue to provide diplomatic support and perhaps engage in a proxy war by supplying arms and ammunition to their respective allies in the Balkans. Instead of the Great War, the conflict would have been a smaller regional Third Balkan War.

[@tkm238-d4r]

Interesting idea but proxy wars as people later knew it occurred partly because of not wanting to create WW3. On the eve of WW1, the death and destruction that occurred as a result of the 2WWs had not yet started. Back then, political-military leaders were more likely to see things in terms of the Crimean War, the German-Italian wars of reunification and the Balkan Wars.

[@junaubomber6977]

Your pronunciation is on point!

[@jessealexander2695]

Thanks!

[@MalikF15]

It’s a war that had helped propel ideologies like Communism and fascism. So pretty pointless unless your Poland

[@TechnMetal]

My Poland??

[@MalikF15]

@@TechnMetal the war helps bring about end of the empires controlling them

[@johnbeechy]

there is more than one kind of communism. leninism is difference from maoism, from titoism, from stalinism, from marxism. communism is basically 'central control of business decisions'. fascism is the opposite with the leader NOT interfering with business decisions. Hitler allowed businesses to hire and use Hebrews as their labour/labor force. whereas the communists literally went door to door to take out any one that did not agree with the decision making process. that included not allowing Hebrews to work in certain jobs. // there r many reasons for a war. but most of the time the wars end the ways of the Old and allow for new movements. Nappy would never have become an Emperor if not for the wars he had fought for the french. Poland did not get goodness from any of the wars/battles it had to Host. President Ford did suggest in a Press Conference, 'Poland is a free state not influenced by the soviet union'. and Ford was on the Warren Commission.

[@MalikF15]

@@johnbeechy yeah and Ford was wrong when he said Eastern Europe was not under Soviet control.

[@thelordofcringe]

​@johnbeechy bs. Every single business over 100 employees needed a party official brought in as coleader to oversee their production and ensure it was "in the interest of the state".

[@LawpickingLocksmith]

Really interesting thanks.

[@janesda]

Pointless in that, despite losing, the German war aim (4:07) of a future German-dominated customs-union in Europe was achieved - although it took a replay, which Germany lost again.

[@JinTeutonic]

We have no real power in Europe we do what the Americans tell us to do

[@ReclaimTheMainland]

it took them 60 years but still succeeded nonetheless

[@JinTeutonic]

@@janesda we don't have real power

[@Sceptonic]

​@@JinTeutonicyou do, its called economic power. The whole of Europe looks to you as the leading richest nation of the EU

[@JinTeutonic]

@Sceptonic we have to do what daddy America tells us

[@Т1000-м1и]

A retake of an old one for sure, just in the perfect time

[@briantarigan7685]

one of the most important aspect about the prelude to world war 1 that barely anyone ever talk about is the deterioration of German foreign policy after Bismarck resigned, it is amusing to see just how quickly the German foreign policies stumbled from one crisis to another due to the dullness of it's policy maker in that aspect that resulted in the relative isolation of the German Empire, a strong militarist bloc clearly doesn't help either, that is what happen when you unite your country using " iron and blood" instead of using a much more legitimate people's power in 1848

[@TheGreatWar]

we'll soon cover this

[@briantarigan7685]

@@TheGreatWar very great, thank you

[@freddieclark]

Yes, 'Dreadnought' by Robert K Massie goes into detail on this.

[@donaldbucher472]

The whole notion of a world war was not possible until Fritz Haber synthesized ammonia in 1911. Ammonia is the starting material for nitrates, which you need to manufacture explosives. Nitrate minerals do not survive encounters with water, so mining in large quantities was limited to a few locations with extremely arid climates. Haber’s breakthrough allowed for historical grievances to metastasize. This standard historical presentation was developed by scholars with minimal scientific literacy.

[@billyosullivan3192]

It's annoying how over looked that invention is in ww1 circles. Had the way began before summer 1913 when industrial production scale of ammonia started then Germany would have quickly ran out of ammo and thus losf quickly. If it stated later Russian modernisation and Frances 3 year rule + Belgium conscription would have led to a quick German defeat too

[@nawolith3840]

Why does every video about this topic forget about Bulgaria?

[@jessealexander2695]

This video only focused on the Great Powers, it is stated at the beginning. No Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Belgium, Greece, Canada, Australia, Japan, China, etc etc.

[@MarceloVolcato]

I love your content!

[@jessealexander2695]

Thanks!

[@faenethlorhalien]

Pointless? Who knows. It's easy to attach or remove a value to historical events with the benefit of over 100 years of history and societal evolution.

[@euphoriaggaminghd]

Well considering every nation threw away millions of people to fight their own brothers and then cause even worse issues with extreme peace plans. I would say it was pretty pointless. And you don't need me to say it, you had people of the time saying it. Like Ferdinand Foch predicted the treaty of Versailles was only a 20 year armistice (and he was spot on).

[@ryderthursday8397]

I think you could take this idea a lot further... history is nothing more than literature

[@velvetcroc9827]

There was never a war that can't plausibly be argued to have been pointless. Wars always start for the most short-sighted, ludicrous and pointless reasons imaginable.

[@P4Tri0t420]

20:15 Did anyone know where this photo was taken?

[@korbell1089]

Pretty sure that is Reichsburg Castle in Cochem Germany.

[@Sergi88998]

@@korbell1089 Thank you! I was going to ask the same thing

[@P4Tri0t420]

@@korbell1089 Thank you

[@CAP198462]

This is one of the most important videos about the Great War. What was on the “wish list” of the major powers involved in the war.

[@js1112111]

My Aunt asked my Grandfather what the purpose of war was when she was a child. His answer was to control the population. She remembers his answer to this day.

[@katana258]

still is

[@jameshudkins2210]

@@katana258 The traditional methods of population control are War, Famine, Pestilence and Plague. Most societies have rejected Ethnic Cleansing, Eugenics and similar direct methods. The Roman Catholic Church and some other societies reject Family Planning. Abstinence and Other methods like Interruption and Rythem are not popular. So, we rely on modern Birth Control or War, Famine, Pestilence and Plague.

[@staceywright1392]

My grandfather said the same thing

[@devyanilimaye8560]

Of white race

[@isbestlizard]

Self determination for me but not for thee

[@sechernbiw3321]

The Dadaists said at the time that the war was pointless. They heard all of the propaganda from the various sides which you've mentioned, and they didn't believe a word about the high and noble ideals supposedly being fought for. They thought that this was basically a war over resources and territory, and one which would end in stalemate for the major powers, but which would potentially end as a victory for the business interests who could profit from it and a defeat for the millions of young soldiers who got killed or maimed on all sides, as well as for the young adult generation in general which would now have far less of a voice and would continue to get dominated by the older generations who made the decisions that started the war and who sent the young off to die. I think it is true. All of the new countries that got self-determination as a result of World War I either no longer existed or were puppets by 1941. Without a single exception. It was only the outcome of World War II that caused a few of these new countries to have a stable and real independent existence after 1945 (really just Yugoslavia and the small nation-state of Austria). Even then, most of the countries created de jure by the outcome of World War I did not become genuinely autonomous until the late 1980s, as a result of the decline of Soviet power and the end of heavy-handed Soviet interventions in their internal politics under the Brezhnev Doctrine (crushing the 1956 Hungarian revolution and the Prague Spring, etc.) The Allies spoke of the barbarism of the Central Powers while Germany spoke of the barbarism of the Russian Empire and the colonies of the Western allies, but World War I itself was far more barbaric than anything that had been happening in the Central Powers, Russian Empire or the West before World War I, and the catastrophic series of events unfolding across the world did not become less barbaric in the period from 1918 to 1945. Quite the opposite.

[@cattysplat]

The British Navy blockaded German ports of receiving food and supplies, making the population starve resulting in around half a million civilian deaths.

[@linkguy0877]

I love how I found this channel while it has exactly 777 videos uploaded... coincidence??

[@edewolf1827]

No mention of the Balfour Declaration? Curious...

[@cruelangel7737]

Siam joined the Allies. Performance on the battlefield was satisfactory and unfair treaties from the era of colonization was dropped. Siam was seen as an equal to the European monarchies. A civilized nation. Emboldened by the experience, the military joined forces with the civilian administrators and would later overthrow the monarchy in 1932, forming the foundations of modern day Thailand.

[@andrew9206]

Little frustrating not to hear Ireland being mentioned during the section discussing Britain's motivations

[@remoosecode7558]

They weren't really relevant to britains motivations?

[@RigbyWilde]

Sometimes I see the Great War as the Clone Wars in Star Wars: a pointless war where everyone lost, engineered by powerhungry individuals

[@nemangame]

Serbia? Bulgaria? Ok...

[@sgtschultz6956]

The title says ‘major nations’.

[@jessealexander2695]

This video only focused on the Great Powers, it is stated at the beginning. No Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Belgium, Greece, Canada, Australia, Japan, China, etc etc.

[@yellow01umrella]

@@jessealexander2695 Bulgaria overran Serbia when Austria-Hungary could not. Who are the Great Powers again?

[@theMosen]

"The 1st World War is often seen as futile and pointless [...] but that ist not how gov't and many people saw the war as it was being fought" ... "A major war goal of [X] was to maintain its prestige..." quod erat demonstrandum

[@scott234ca]

As we unfortunately have not learned; war itself is pointless. Especially in a nuclear age.

[@007kingifrit]

this is untrue, war is the only thing that generates enough human suffering to reset the world

[@avengemybreath3084]

Yet the alternative is sometimes submission to tyranny

[@McIntyreBible]

3:33, Jesse, that's an argument that historian Christopher Clark does not share. He says in his book 'The Sleepwalkers' that Germany (along with the other nations) bares some of the blame, but not all!

[@zx7siovia213]

No war is pointless. Peace is shaped by war.

[@Koba_26]

All wars are pointless. Human stupidity rationalizes them.

[@jordansmith4040]

​@Koba_26 an excellent combination of cynicism and naivety. Bravo!

[@jordansmith4040]

​@@Koba_26 That's an excellent combination of cynicism and Naivety.

[@MultiKbarry]

@@Koba_26 What about wars of liberation, freeing of people, or ending things like piracy?

[@filipcolumbeanu5447]

Romanian here. Objectively, Romania got a very sweet deal out of WWI. It gained a territory (Transylvania) inhabited by roughly 53% ethnic Romanians, 30% Hungarians and 10% Saxons, with the latter two dominating the elite and political life. Now, I think that if Austro- Hungary would have allowed more social flexibility, Romanians in Transylvania would have had no problem supporting Hungarian national interests.

[@billyosullivan3192]

Russia promised Romania that land it got anyway just for a hostile neutrality to the central powers

[@TheFlubber06]

It was banks too though. The Bank of England extended a limitless line of credit to its Chief Cashier and his deputy so that they would buy the outstanding 70% of the bond issue that the public refused to buy. The British people were refusing to finance the war, but the central bank and the government forced them to pay for it anyway.

[@ThomisticAmerican13FOX]

Thats central banking for you. Great point.😂

[@LouisHildago]

Thank you for revealing the true cause of the war, Sir Edward Grey, the Ghost of Edward the VII and the City of London Corporation.

[@billyosullivan3192]

"the British people were refusing to finance the war" No evidence given and the majority of the 5.5 million who fought in ww1 were volunteers

[@KMN-bg3yu]

Created more problems than it solved. Were still seeing the effects more than a century later

[@theokaraman]

The "Mitteleuropa projekt" reminds me of something nowadays.....

[@executivedirector7467]

Exactly! Skip all the wars and just form the EU in 1914! ;)

[@gabvermette4999]

What is it?

[@nvelsen1975]

Naah, I'm sure this idea of European cooperation will never catch on.

[@metternich_999]

It's similar to Napoleon's Continental System.

[@devyanilimaye8560]

The Pity of War by Niall Ferguson describes exactly this idea .. incredible scholarship in the book, worth reading.. He puts the blame on the British parliament for the genocidal level loss of European people ..which in my personal opinion hasn't recovered to this day, might never ever

[@renes.7858]

Wonderful video! I really love your way you pronounce german or french. So far better than "Simple Hisory". His pronounciations, especially in german, are an insult for every native speaker. And he isn´t even trying to become better. So i appreciate your use of language very much!

[@spiffygonzales5160]

I think the real point of the war was the friends we lost along the way 🙂

[@biologicalengineoflove6851]

absolute banger vid

[@marcellevesque2442]

It was worse than pointless. It gave us Israel and never-ending wars.

[@JoeSchmoer]

It's strange, though, I still cant shake the feeling that I'm missing something. They all had those war aims, sure, but... I guess the disconnect is how those wars aims could motivate countries to fight to practically the last man. Specifically Germany.

[@Tallyhawk9]

Great video…but what about Japan? The Pacific wasn’t a big part of the war but Japan was major power and was certainly involved with taking out (and taking over) German colonies in the East. I’m surprised you declined to include them

[@NankerPhelge65]

Nothing in history is pointless.

[@brettmitchell1777]

Censorship prevents us from knowing the truth.