"Well obviously it was to stop the villainous Kaiser and his evil empire building!" "George, the British Empire covers a quarter of the world. The German empire consists of a single sausage factory in Tanganyika."
I think its important to acknowledge that people genuinely thought the war would be short. People in power generally see things in terms of established patterns. At that point in history wars were always concluded quickly. They were also thinking about what the geo politics of a larger Germany would be like and decided it was better to fight the war they could win.
I love the new chorale music for your intro! Thanks again for you ever enlightening erudition. Their are countless canards in statecraft conventional wisdom. Perhaps chief among them: A state can dispense with internal divisions by turning attention to an external 'threat' - either real or more often than not, imagined.
Very thought provoking; quite an achievement when writing about this particular historical period, betwixt and between the Scylla of fashionable revisionism and the charybdis of defensive reaction.
I think it's a bit naïve to say that Germany posing an existential risk is 'ridiculous'. If the British don't intervene, there's no naval blockade. Germany came so close to defeating France anyway, they DID defeat Russia, Italy probably don't join the not-Entente, so now you have a cowed or conquered Belgium, Netherlands France, Russia, and Germany with Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman allies who thanks to the lack of British involvement are pretty much guaranteed to achieve their war aims in the Balkans. Please tell me how having a militaristic Empire that has effectively cowed all of Europe in a short period of time sitting right on your doorstep doesn't present an existential threat? What is to stop them sweeping in to Spain? In what world, with an utterly victorious Germany - and they would have been utterly victorious without the intervention of the Empire and ultimately the US - would the British Empire be able to arbitrate from a position of strength? What strength? The only strength we would have held over the Germans would have been naval, and now with the entirety of Europe under their command, or at least browbeaten by military defeat, naval blockade is much less effective and far less tenable, as the British Navy could not effectively blockade the entirety of Europe and the Balkans, all the way down to the Southern Ottoman territories. Furthermore with a defeated Russia, Germany holds the breadbasket of Europe - Ukraine - and oil fields that will become increasingly vital as the century wears on. You're usually great but I think you've got this completely wrong.
The argument always presented (as you have here) is that the Germans either conquer Europe or create a second continental system. Kaiser Wilhelm II was not Napoleon, and the war was characterised as defensive. I do not believe that Germany would have been utterly victorious - nor do I believe anyone in the British establishment did. Britain would never knowingly have joined the losing side. Indeed, there is ample evidence to suggest that the British were attempting to either appease - or destroy Russia (as the greater threat to the empire). The British contribution in 1914 was a drop in the ocean, and the Germans underestimated both the French, Russians and even the Serbians and Belgians. Austrian and German aims were limited politically until 1917. Indeed the September programme was a response to Britain's involvement. In 1870-1 France was conquered and Britain stayed out. This argument also presupposes that Britain could not have entered the war at any other time, which is frankly absurd. The threat of a naval blockade alone would have been enough to moderate German gains in the event of victory - as was continually the case throughout European history. I've done a four hour stream on WWI counterfactuals, and nothing I've ever read has convinced me that Britain's declaration of war was strategically necessary. Moreover this stream was an attempt to grasp at a genuine strategy, one that exists albeit fatally flawed - stemming from fear and not reason.
@@ApostolicMajesty Thank you for your considered and respectful response. While I don't believe there is anything inherently badly wrong with the argument you've put forward - and I certainly think your point that England could have entered the war at another time during the war is a fair one - I still think that the arguments I've put forward, and the often accepted understanding of the reasoning behind British intervention compile to make a stronger case than one centred around using the war as a distraction from the Home Rule problem. I do understand that war has often been used to distract from pressing political issues, or timed to win popular support (The Falklands is one that is often cited as such, both from the Argentinian and British sides. Whether that's true or not is another issue entirely but it is an argument that is out there is my point). But I think there are many and more ways to work your way around that problem than involving yourself in a European conflict. Again, there is a logic to it when it's remembered that few expected WWII to become the unprecedented protracted cataclysm it became. But I still think that the prospect of war with three Empires (granted two of them were second rate powers) is surely overegging the pudding if your goal is just to describe to home rule. Apologies if it seems I am reducing your argument entirely to the home rule one, but it did seem to be the primary pillar of your argument. Lastly, I am still largely in agreement with your sentiment that the British entering the conflict, in the way and at the time that they did, is baffling at best. Thanks again for your time in replying so considerately.
I generally like your videos and appreciate the effort you put into them. That aside, why are we comparing Wilhelm II to Napoleon? Like they had any comprable level of influence in their states. There is ample evidence, as in proposals by the German political class as early as 1913, to create a continental bloc excluding the UK. Proponents of British Imperial Federation saw their olive branches to Germany consistently rebuffed by haughty foreign policy, whether it’s the naval race, or the Boer wars, or the Morroco crisis. Not only does a German victory potentially stifle the UK’s access to European markets, Britain’s basic foreign policy directive for centuries, but it kicks the Reich’s hegemonic desire down the road. A future row between the nations would now see Germany in a far better position. They now not only have more resources relatively, as they’ve sedated their teo greatest continental advesaries, but they would have more resources in absolute terms. Strategically, not dealing with the German ‘bud’ now would be unsound. Obviously with hindsight we can see how costly this war was for the United Kingdom. However in hindsight, no European empire should have gone war so it’s not an interesting point. I believe Britain’s choice to join the war was strategically sound at the time.
Ya in an unrelated note, Zionist groups in britain were very pro war since it was an opportunity to get closer to a jewish israeli state if the ottomans lose.
That argument could be made for WW2 but for WW1, I believe it was genuinely the political class who made the decisions without such a huge influence of the financial caste.
Because they had absolutely nothing to do with starting the First World War. I've been an open National Socialist for more than 10 years, and I get sick to death of seeing this blaming Jews for the Great War crap. It's asinine. It was a completely different war.
So you think that entering the war was not mainly about stopping one dominant country gaining control the Northern French and Belgian coasts, despite the fact that this had been British / English foreign policy since the days of Elizabeth I. In addition, do you not think that considerations of what the outcome would have been after the war irrespective of the winners? Either a dominant and frequently anti British Germany, in possession of those coasts, and also probably in possession of the fleets of France and Russia, or a very pissed off France and Russia who had been let down by their supposed ally. In either case the future would have been very unpleasant for Britain , after all a lack of allies is what had persuaded Britain to form alliances with Japan and then France, as we had realised that being friendless was not a good place to be.
'So you think that entering the war was not mainly about stopping one dominant country gaining control the Northern French and Belgian coasts,' Didn't happen in 1871
@@juliantheapostate8295 Bismarck was just about the smartest diplomatic politician in history. In each of the three wars he fought to unite Germany - including in 1871 - he made sure his opponent basically lacked allies. He understood the importance of not antagonising other countries needlessly, to the point where they might enter the war on your opponent’s side. In 1871 Germany was no kind of maritime threat to the Royal Navy, so its victory over France didn’t worry the Brits. If Bismarckians had remained in charge of German policy up to 1914, 1) there would have been no World War One, and 2), there would have been no provocative naval arms race with Britain. Bismarck said, “if there is ever another war in Europe, it will come out of some damned silly thing in the Balkans.” He also said, “the Balkans aren't worth the life of a single Pomeranian grenadier.” A Bismarckian Germany would have restrained Austria from provoking Russia with too extreme demands against Serbia.
@@juliantheapostate8295 Seeing how France declared war during that war I would say the Brits weren't that fussed. They had other fish to fry and were going through a rather down period by their standards. The military was very rough in particular.
As a weak European land power, Brits did not want a strong ontinental power to occupy Europe. They played the Spanish Prussian against Napolean. The Belgium the French against the Kaiser...and well everybody against Hitler.
Essentially it was to maintain Britain’s economic and commercial dominance over their main rising rival, and they played upon emotional sentiment to justify this silly war to the masses. You can get pretty in-depth British involvement in the Sarajevo incident, as well as Russian okrana supplying the weapons. All parties had motivation and Britain played off them all
These videos are really interesting. I started watching you a few weeks before and I must say I enjoy this more than anything else on CZcams which frames itself as educational (in terms of history at least). I am keen on learning more
Nations, like people, should keep their agreements. The British did the right thing. Germany wanted European hegemony and a fleet to challenge the Royal Navy, which to Britain is an existential threat.
A brilliant overview and perspective analysis, I would add that few saw it coming at the time, E F Benson published a sort of retrospective memoir about 1914 , he was inn a position to be well informed about British establishment's political ideology. He describes how his world was completely blown away but at the time, as he read,for example of the assassination of the Archduke in Serbia, no alarm bells were ringing , it didn't seem momentous, there were no portents of the impending horrors and catastrophic war.But as you say, the scene was set and they blundered into it clueless of the costs and consequences. Like net zero, our 1914, the end of Western civilisation, for less than nothing, absurdist ideologists waging war on reality, expecting to win.
John P. Cafferky : " Lord Milner's Second War " ( The Rhoades - Milner Secret Society, The Origins of World War I And the start of the New World Order ) 2013. Developed from the works of Carroll Quigley. "..The Rhoades - Milner secret society ( The Milner Group ) based in England, colluded with President Poincaré of France and Ambassador Izvolsky of Russia to foment the seminal event of the twentieth century-the 1914-18 First World War. Izvolsky destroyed Czarist Russia; Poincaré led a million-and-a-half of his countrymen to their graves; but victory for the Milner Group left this secret organisation of imperialists and financiers wielding enormous influence in world affairs..."
Also: "The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy" by Ioan Ratiu (2016) "The Anglo-American Establishment" and "Tragedy & Hope" by Carroll Quigley Prof. Antony Sutton's books Brzezinski's "Between Two Ages" + basically the rest of Jay Dyer's 'geopolitics & based history' reading list.
Interesting. Certainly, people today underestimate the trouble round Home Rule. The business at Curragh, that showed the officer corps of the Army was quite prepared to disobey direct orders. Where does that path lead if you pushed them?
once again, i have learned a lot from you. you lay things out really well. i would still urge you to sort out the audio recording/editing. currently, to hear you clearly, i have to crank the volume knob up to 11. also, the sound is shrill. high frequencies need to be toned down. sorry to be a pain but, these are voice recordings after all.
Never heard a better explanation for GB's decision to participate in the war on the continent, in a conflict, that did not threaten the Britain's empire directly. One of the big questions which is still open (for me), is why the Americans choose to take part in the conflict. The restart of the uboat-war was the pretext for the US, but for Germany more a consequence of being dismissed in their pleading to Wilson - end of 1916 to the first months of 1917 - to moderate a peace process in Europe - like T. Roosevelt had done with Russia and Japan. What would you say...? Thxx - AM.
Sunk cost. They had provided incredibly economic support to the Entente, even providing massive loans to prevent Britain from going bankrupt in 1916. They had to ensure that the Entente won to make good on their loans.
Many Republicans were railing against Thomas Woodrow Wilson that enough provocation from Germany had occurred. Although the fear really was that Germany would get some land near America, I do not know why this was a big deal though.
Sunk Cost fallacy, as well as the fact that US-German cables were cut, meaning that UK Had more or less the full control of the news. As well as the fact that Wilson by his very nature, a hypocrite and in truth a Warhawk who wanted nothing more than to make world fit for democracy due to his blind idealism.
Germany had far more industrially skilled workers.. Britain couldn't compete. The Bank of England knew where that'd lead, especially with regard to the slowly emerging USA.
I think the deterrent vision was that the Germans would inevitably rule over continental Europe in the longer run, given the experienced period after 1871. With the benefit of hindsight this seems to be not really justified. The alternative was to fully concentrate on the empire, just keeping the triangular equilibrium of France, Germany and Russia intact by diplomacy.
I have heard that Germany felt pressed to engage because they felt that the window was rapidly closing for their ability to actually defeat the Russians, whom they saw as their greatest threat. What do you think?
@@Robert_L_PetersWell, the German-Russian relations were always complicated but not completely hostile. Think of Bismarck‘s policy of always taking the Russians into account. The problem with Russia was that the real conflict arose between Russia and Austria-Hungary, i.e. who would „rule“ the Balkan? In the era of Panslawism, Pangermanism this escalated in the early 20th century. Bc the Germans had of course ‚brotherly feelings‘ to the A-H empire the French succeeded in drawing Russia on its side. Yes, after, say, 1905 to 1910 the German military planned for the worst case, a two front war. So it actually happened.
Imperial Federation was probably always going to fail, even if the World Wars hadn’t intervened. The remaining settler colonies were already on their way to full autonomy on the Canadian model. And how could India be fitted into such an arrangement? Even in 1914 it had a population several times larger than Britain, so any equitably based federation would wind up completely dominated by India. I think a Britain which stood aloof from WW1 would have had more time to bring most of its colonies to self-government more calmly, and maybe preserve more goodwill in the process. But I can’t see how the direction of travel could have been reversed. Chamberlain was the Empire’s Guy Verhofstadt of integration. But the most that could have been achieved was probably an Imperial version of the CPTPP.
Delusions of grandeur. Each country thought they were gods chosen people amd god can only choose one. This has to be tested at some point. This has to play out. To give up after the stalemate in the trenches is to give up your entire world view, the ego would not sustain it. Death and total loss is preferable than an acknowledgement of not being up to the task.
Remember that failure from the Great War who became the face of Great Britain during the Second War? God what was his name I just can’t seem to remember that guy? Talked with a lisp and everything, British people loved him. He thought chamberlain was a pushover.
The Suez canal was useful for all how want the items in trade at a reasonable price and delivery is costly if blocked by another who doesn't want them getting rich which isn't practical if the goods are produced by other's they could easily been invested in to gain their own percentage in the organization but the thought of fear is discrimination we are all trying to hang on. 😂
Mr, Apostolic Majesty, if you would take the trouble to study a map od the North Sea and English Channel coasts, you would discover why Britain had no choice to enter this conflict in order to prevent an eventual British invasion and conquest of Brtain by Germany. In the absence of British intervention, a German conquest of Britain would have become very likely. While Germany had suspended its naval arme race with Britain some time before 1914, it would have had every motivation for resuming it after successfully conquering France and Belgium. Germany could and I think would have established naval bases all along the Channel coast. A German navel base at Ostend on the Belgium coast would have been especially menacing to Britain, since it is only a quick ferry ride across the channel to England. It would have been easy for the Germans to launch a successful invasion of Britain from theis point, once they had completed the modernization of their navy and increased its size, which they would certainly have done. Amazing how so many professorial "experts" om history are unable to grasp such self-evident realities.
It's so frustrating how short sighted British imperial policy was at the height of the empire - a world empire run for the sake of owning opponents in your old boy's debating chamber. It's not without precedent however to have a major empire run by a mercantile/ patrician oligarchy via a deliberative assembly - Athens, Cartage, the late Roman Republic, the Netherlands and the modern USA all spring to mind. It's inconceivable that Britain after the civil war could have been ruled by a succession of Cromwells, but we might have had a more robust and far sighted monarchy making our policies more far sighted if not for the Glorious Revolution and the Hanoverian succession.
I just understood that the British went into WWI to assist mainly the French, the alternative to supporting the French would be German dominance of France & western Europe ! !
Britain joined the first world war because geostrategic imperative required it to always ally against the strongest land power on Europe. To make sure they could never become secure enough to fully fund a Navy to match Britain. Spain>France>Russia>Germany Britain could also not allow any great land power to seize the Port of Antwerp. Being located inland on the Scheldt river with direct access to the English channel, made it secure against direct bombardment from the sea. This is a poor video which ignores the pertinent to ramble on about Ireland.
The British Empire honestly does not get enough heat. They were the cause of a ton of horrendous shit. Not to mention how Churchill was so blood thirsty before WW2....
Nobody relied on deliverance from the U.S in the First World War. They only had 100,000 KIA with 50% of this being to Spanish Flu. The war was won by in 1918 due to the Germans exhausting their armies during the Spring Offensive and then Foch deciding to counter attack at the Second Battle of the Marne. This was followed by a string of victories and rapid advances across the front and pursued the Germans back to the border. These armies had troops from a number of nations including America, but they were overwhelmingly French and also British. Some people portray the First war in the narrative of the Second, in which the majority U.S dominated allied army landed in Europe (D-Day) etc and pushed the Germans out.
With 50,000 KIA we may imagine 150,000 wounded, or perhaps more. If we assume half were not wounded (an atrocious attrition rate) then that is several Corps worth of troops. That would have made a difference
Would have Germany launched the Spring Offensive in the first place if it was not worried about ending the conflict before American soldiers could gather in large numbers on the Western Front? Perhaps if American stayed neutral the Germans would have focused on the Balkans to reconnect to their Ottoman allies, or perhaps against Italy to relieve pressure off of the Austrians?
@@FeHearts They would have attacked westward as soon as they defeated Russia in order to end the war. The whole point of the Western Front was about Germany invading France. They tried to do it in 1914 but lost at the Battle of the Marne and again in 1916 at Verdun.
The primary impact the US had was financial. Britain was on the cusp of running out of secured loans, America would not accept unsecured loans, and France/Italy/Russia borrowed through Britain. Britain could not not expanded its economy and war effort in 1918, France would have had a sharp decline instead of maintaining, and Italy would have been forced out. You also have the impact of America joining the blockade which prevented the CP from getting food from America through neutral countries. Then there was the intangible factor of morale.
I think Britain joining WWI was bad in hindsight, but understandable. If Germany won WWI, they'd be the masters of Europe. France would have been pacified after losing 2 wars in a row with Prussia/Germany, and Belgium and The Netherlands would fall into the German sphere of influence since they have no chance of defending themselves. The peace terms Germany gave Russia may have been more extreme, and the remaining independent Balkan states would also have to cave in to German demands since nobody will defend them either (this probably isn't an issue since Austria-Hungary was going to fall apart regardless of the outcome of WW1, but thats a hindsight argument). With Britain remaining neutral, Italy would have either stayed out of the conflict or reaffirmed the triple alliance. None of these imaginary circumstances directly threaten the British Empire, but the outcome of the war may have challenged Britain's economic dominance in the continent and Germany reaching great power status may have caused bigger problems for Britain in the future.
"With regard to the Empire our methods were not overly innovative, we merely adopted the strategy of Genghis and applied to them the steam engine." - Beyondegra. G. Maj circa 1884
I love your work, you do a great job. But please do me three favors if you would be so kind. 1 - Drink a large glass of Water before recording 2 - Sit a little further away from the mic 3 - Maybe invest in some nice mic-filter Cause the gulping inbetween sentence and smacking of Lips is slowly driving my crazy. I am currently watching your entire Backlog of Videos, again great work. But after hours I kinda snapped and aks you most humble to review my request.
If you enjoyed this video, please like and leave a comment. It helps the channel a lot. Many thanks.
"Well obviously it was to stop the villainous Kaiser and his evil empire building!"
"George, the British Empire covers a quarter of the world. The German empire consists of a single sausage factory in Tanganyika."
@@onemoreminute0543 I like history: Henry VIII and his six knives…
Your intros are hands down some of the best on CZcams.
I think its important to acknowledge that people genuinely thought the war would be short. People in power generally see things in terms of established patterns. At that point in history wars were always concluded quickly. They were also thinking about what the geo politics of a larger Germany would be like and decided it was better to fight the war they could win.
I agree 100%
I love the new chorale music for your intro! Thanks again for you ever enlightening erudition.
Their are countless canards in statecraft conventional wisdom. Perhaps chief among them: A state can dispense with internal divisions by turning attention to an external 'threat' - either real or more often than not, imagined.
Thankyou AM Really enjoying these mini lectures.
AM try not to drop absolute gems for five minutes challenge (impossible)
The struggle is real
Very thought provoking; quite an achievement when writing about this particular historical period, betwixt and between the Scylla of fashionable revisionism and the charybdis of defensive reaction.
Nice metaphor there!
Arsebiscuits
@@user-ih8fn1uz6y dont they make your breath smell?
“But this is SORT of a war, isn’t it Sir”?
Pte Baldrick
Of late we've been continuously being spoiled
spoiled in what way ?
I think it's a bit naïve to say that Germany posing an existential risk is 'ridiculous'. If the British don't intervene, there's no naval blockade. Germany came so close to defeating France anyway, they DID defeat Russia, Italy probably don't join the not-Entente, so now you have a cowed or conquered Belgium, Netherlands France, Russia, and Germany with Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman allies who thanks to the lack of British involvement are pretty much guaranteed to achieve their war aims in the Balkans.
Please tell me how having a militaristic Empire that has effectively cowed all of Europe in a short period of time sitting right on your doorstep doesn't present an existential threat? What is to stop them sweeping in to Spain?
In what world, with an utterly victorious Germany - and they would have been utterly victorious without the intervention of the Empire and ultimately the US - would the British Empire be able to arbitrate from a position of strength? What strength? The only strength we would have held over the Germans would have been naval, and now with the entirety of Europe under their command, or at least browbeaten by military defeat, naval blockade is much less effective and far less tenable, as the British Navy could not effectively blockade the entirety of Europe and the Balkans, all the way down to the Southern Ottoman territories.
Furthermore with a defeated Russia, Germany holds the breadbasket of Europe - Ukraine - and oil fields that will become increasingly vital as the century wears on.
You're usually great but I think you've got this completely wrong.
The argument always presented (as you have here) is that the Germans either conquer Europe or create a second continental system. Kaiser Wilhelm II was not Napoleon, and the war was characterised as defensive. I do not believe that Germany would have been utterly victorious - nor do I believe anyone in the British establishment did. Britain would never knowingly have joined the losing side. Indeed, there is ample evidence to suggest that the British were attempting to either appease - or destroy Russia (as the greater threat to the empire). The British contribution in 1914 was a drop in the ocean, and the Germans underestimated both the French, Russians and even the Serbians and Belgians. Austrian and German aims were limited politically until 1917. Indeed the September programme was a response to Britain's involvement. In 1870-1 France was conquered and Britain stayed out. This argument also presupposes that Britain could not have entered the war at any other time, which is frankly absurd. The threat of a naval blockade alone would have been enough to moderate German gains in the event of victory - as was continually the case throughout European history.
I've done a four hour stream on WWI counterfactuals, and nothing I've ever read has convinced me that Britain's declaration of war was strategically necessary. Moreover this stream was an attempt to grasp at a genuine strategy, one that exists albeit fatally flawed - stemming from fear and not reason.
@@ApostolicMajesty Thank you for your considered and respectful response. While I don't believe there is anything inherently badly wrong with the argument you've put forward - and I certainly think your point that England could have entered the war at another time during the war is a fair one - I still think that the arguments I've put forward, and the often accepted understanding of the reasoning behind British intervention compile to make a stronger case than one centred around using the war as a distraction from the Home Rule problem.
I do understand that war has often been used to distract from pressing political issues, or timed to win popular support (The Falklands is one that is often cited as such, both from the Argentinian and British sides. Whether that's true or not is another issue entirely but it is an argument that is out there is my point). But I think there are many and more ways to work your way around that problem than involving yourself in a European conflict.
Again, there is a logic to it when it's remembered that few expected WWII to become the unprecedented protracted cataclysm it became. But I still think that the prospect of war with three Empires (granted two of them were second rate powers) is surely overegging the pudding if your goal is just to describe to home rule.
Apologies if it seems I am reducing your argument entirely to the home rule one, but it did seem to be the primary pillar of your argument.
Lastly, I am still largely in agreement with your sentiment that the British entering the conflict, in the way and at the time that they did, is baffling at best.
Thanks again for your time in replying so considerately.
It is worth reading Von Bernhardi’s “Germany in the Next War” … concerns over German militarism and global ambitions were not unfounded…
I generally like your videos and appreciate the effort you put into them. That aside, why are we comparing Wilhelm II to Napoleon? Like they had any comprable level of influence in their states. There is ample evidence, as in proposals by the German political class as early as 1913, to create a continental bloc excluding the UK. Proponents of British Imperial Federation saw their olive branches to Germany consistently rebuffed by haughty foreign policy, whether it’s the naval race, or the Boer wars, or the Morroco crisis. Not only does a German victory potentially stifle the UK’s access to European markets, Britain’s basic foreign policy directive for centuries, but it kicks the Reich’s hegemonic desire down the road. A future row between the nations would now see Germany in a far better position. They now not only have more resources relatively, as they’ve sedated their teo greatest continental advesaries, but they would have more resources in absolute terms. Strategically, not dealing with the German ‘bud’ now would be unsound.
Obviously with hindsight we can see how costly this war was for the United Kingdom. However in hindsight, no European empire should have gone war so it’s not an interesting point. I believe Britain’s choice to join the war was strategically sound at the time.
For no good reason whatsoever.
I have spoken
Wonderful new intro of sacred art and music.❤
pls bring back the 2-3+ hours videos
Bump
Those are usually streams
These mini lectures are great.
Superb
Why is there a lack of mention of bankers?
You want him to be demonistised for anti semitism?
Their puppet Churchill was mentioned.
Ya in an unrelated note, Zionist groups in britain were very pro war since it was an opportunity to get closer to a jewish israeli state if the ottomans lose.
That argument could be made for WW2 but for WW1, I believe it was genuinely the political class who made the decisions without such a huge influence of the financial caste.
Because they had absolutely nothing to do with starting the First World War.
I've been an open National Socialist for more than 10 years, and I get sick to death of seeing this blaming Jews for the Great War crap. It's asinine.
It was a completely different war.
Very well put.
So you think that entering the war was not mainly about stopping one dominant country gaining control the Northern French and Belgian coasts, despite the fact that this had been British / English foreign policy since the days of Elizabeth I. In addition, do you not think that considerations of what the outcome would have been after the war irrespective of the winners? Either a dominant and frequently anti British Germany, in possession of those coasts, and also probably in possession of the fleets of France and Russia, or a very pissed off France and Russia who had been let down by their supposed ally. In either case the future would have been very unpleasant for Britain , after all a lack of allies is what had persuaded Britain to form alliances with Japan and then France, as we had realised that being friendless was not a good place to be.
'So you think that entering the war was not mainly about stopping one dominant country gaining control the Northern French and Belgian coasts,'
Didn't happen in 1871
@@juliantheapostate8295 Bismarck was just about the smartest diplomatic politician in history. In each of the three wars he fought to unite Germany - including in 1871 - he made sure his opponent basically lacked allies. He understood the importance of not antagonising other countries needlessly, to the point where they might enter the war on your opponent’s side. In 1871 Germany was no kind of maritime threat to the Royal Navy, so its victory over France didn’t worry the Brits.
If Bismarckians had remained in charge of German policy up to 1914, 1) there would have been no World War One, and 2), there would have been no provocative naval arms race with Britain.
Bismarck said, “if there is ever another war in Europe, it will come out of some damned silly thing in the Balkans.” He also said, “the Balkans aren't worth the life of a single Pomeranian grenadier.” A Bismarckian Germany would have restrained Austria from provoking Russia with too extreme demands against Serbia.
"Northern French"
never would have happened
even the radical plan only wanted to expand into ardenes
@@juliantheapostate8295 Seeing how France declared war during that war I would say the Brits weren't that fussed. They had other fish to fry and were going through a rather down period by their standards. The military was very rough in particular.
@@georgesdelatour If Germany defeated France, then the Germans could challenge the British !
As a weak European land power, Brits did not want a strong ontinental power to occupy Europe. They played the Spanish Prussian against Napolean. The Belgium the French against the Kaiser...and well everybody against Hitler.
Is that a Carlo Gesualdo da Venosa piece in the intro?
Free trade advocates were also imperialist, omg 🤦🏿♂️
Essentially it was to maintain Britain’s economic and commercial dominance over their main rising rival, and they played upon emotional sentiment to justify this silly war to the masses. You can get pretty in-depth British involvement in the Sarajevo incident, as well as Russian okrana supplying the weapons. All parties had motivation and Britain played off them all
Love the new intro
These videos are really interesting. I started watching you a few weeks before and I must say I enjoy this more than anything else on CZcams which frames itself as educational (in terms of history at least). I am keen on learning more
Nations, like people, should keep their agreements. The British did the right thing. Germany wanted European hegemony and a fleet to challenge the Royal Navy, which to Britain is an existential threat.
A brilliant overview and perspective analysis, I would add that few saw it coming at the time, E F Benson published a sort of retrospective memoir about 1914 , he was inn a position to be well informed about British establishment's political ideology.
He describes how his world was completely blown away but at the time, as he read,for example of the assassination of the Archduke in Serbia, no alarm bells were ringing , it didn't seem momentous, there were no portents of the impending horrors and catastrophic war.But as you say, the scene was set and they blundered into it clueless of the costs and consequences.
Like net zero, our 1914, the end of Western civilisation, for less than nothing, absurdist ideologists waging war on reality, expecting to win.
I should probably know this, but what's the painting at 0:14?
Very striking
John P. Cafferky : " Lord Milner's Second War " ( The Rhoades - Milner Secret Society, The Origins of World War I And the start of the New World Order ) 2013.
Developed from the works of Carroll Quigley.
"..The Rhoades - Milner secret society ( The Milner Group ) based in England, colluded with President Poincaré of France and Ambassador Izvolsky of Russia to foment the seminal event of the twentieth century-the 1914-18 First World War. Izvolsky destroyed Czarist Russia; Poincaré led a million-and-a-half of his countrymen to their graves; but victory for the Milner Group left this secret organisation of imperialists and financiers wielding enormous influence in world affairs..."
Also:
"The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy" by Ioan Ratiu (2016)
"The Anglo-American Establishment" and "Tragedy & Hope" by Carroll Quigley
Prof. Antony Sutton's books
Brzezinski's "Between Two Ages"
+ basically the rest of Jay Dyer's 'geopolitics & based history' reading list.
@@GMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMFellow Dyer-fan
Interesting. Certainly, people today underestimate the trouble round Home Rule. The business at Curragh, that showed the officer corps of the Army was quite prepared to disobey direct orders. Where does that path lead if you pushed them?
Just found the channel, oh the joy
once again, i have learned a lot from you. you lay things out really well. i would still urge you to sort out the audio recording/editing. currently, to hear you clearly, i have to crank the volume knob up to 11. also, the sound is shrill. high frequencies need to be toned down. sorry to be a pain but, these are voice recordings after all.
@@DC-is5rc Nope, definitely not a "he" problem. I also have it and a friend of mine also has it.
Yes very sad. Thank you
Never heard a better explanation for GB's decision to participate in the war on the continent, in a conflict, that did not threaten the Britain's empire directly.
One of the big questions which is still open (for me), is why the Americans choose to take part in the conflict.
The restart of the uboat-war was the pretext for the US, but for Germany more a consequence of being dismissed in their pleading to Wilson - end of 1916 to the first months of 1917 - to moderate a peace process in Europe - like T. Roosevelt had done with Russia and Japan.
What would you say...?
Thxx - AM.
Sunk cost. They had provided incredibly economic support to the Entente, even providing massive loans to prevent Britain from going bankrupt in 1916. They had to ensure that the Entente won to make good on their loans.
Look into the bankers.
The BIS (result of Young plan for German repayments) is still here 100 years later...
It would have been politically impossible for Wilson to prevent a declaration of war after the Zimmerman Telegraph
Many Republicans were railing against Thomas Woodrow Wilson that enough provocation from Germany had occurred. Although the fear really was that Germany would get some land near America, I do not know why this was a big deal though.
Sunk Cost fallacy, as well as the fact that US-German cables were cut, meaning that UK Had more or less the full control of the news. As well as the fact that Wilson by his very nature, a hypocrite and in truth a Warhawk who wanted nothing more than to make world fit for democracy due to his blind idealism.
Germany had far more industrially skilled workers.. Britain couldn't compete. The Bank of England knew where that'd lead, especially with regard to the slowly emerging USA.
I think the deterrent vision was that the Germans would inevitably rule over continental Europe in the longer run, given the experienced period after 1871. With the benefit of hindsight this seems to be not really justified. The alternative was to fully concentrate on the empire, just keeping the triangular equilibrium of France, Germany and Russia intact by diplomacy.
I have heard that Germany felt pressed to engage because they felt that the window was rapidly closing for their ability to actually defeat the Russians, whom they saw as their greatest threat. What do you think?
@@Robert_L_PetersWell, the German-Russian relations were always complicated but not completely hostile. Think of Bismarck‘s policy of always taking the Russians into account. The problem with Russia was that the real conflict arose between Russia and Austria-Hungary, i.e. who would „rule“ the Balkan? In the era of Panslawism, Pangermanism this escalated in the early 20th century. Bc the Germans had of course ‚brotherly feelings‘ to the A-H empire the French succeeded in drawing Russia on its side. Yes, after, say, 1905 to 1910 the German military planned for the worst case, a two front war. So it actually happened.
Professor AM, another banger. Wish you could do all of recorded history.
Good lecture, cheers.
Imperial Federation was probably always going to fail, even if the World Wars hadn’t intervened. The remaining settler colonies were already on their way to full autonomy on the Canadian model. And how could India be fitted into such an arrangement? Even in 1914 it had a population several times larger than Britain, so any equitably based federation would wind up completely dominated by India.
I think a Britain which stood aloof from WW1 would have had more time to bring most of its colonies to self-government more calmly, and maybe preserve more goodwill in the process. But I can’t see how the direction of travel could have been reversed. Chamberlain was the Empire’s Guy Verhofstadt of integration. But the most that could have been achieved was probably an Imperial version of the CPTPP.
Delusions of grandeur. Each country thought they were gods chosen people amd god can only choose one. This has to be tested at some point. This has to play out. To give up after the stalemate in the trenches is to give up your entire world view, the ego would not sustain it. Death and total loss is preferable than an acknowledgement of not being up to the task.
I guess we found out who the 'chosen people' are then...
I enjoy these WW1/WW2 in depth videos from you sir.
I like the new intro
Remember that failure from the Great War who became the face of Great Britain during the Second War? God what was his name I just can’t seem to remember that guy? Talked with a lisp and everything, British people loved him. He thought chamberlain was a pushover.
The Suez canal was useful for all how want the items in trade at a reasonable price and delivery is costly if blocked by another who doesn't want them getting rich which isn't practical if the goods are produced by other's they could easily been invested in to gain their own percentage in the organization but the thought of fear is discrimination we are all trying to hang on. 😂
Mr, Apostolic Majesty, if you would take the trouble to study a map od the North Sea and English Channel coasts, you would discover why Britain had no choice to enter this conflict in order to prevent an eventual British invasion and conquest of Brtain by Germany. In the absence of British intervention, a German conquest of Britain would have become very likely. While Germany had suspended its naval arme race with Britain some time before 1914, it would have had every motivation for resuming it after successfully conquering France and Belgium. Germany could and I think would have established naval bases all along the Channel coast. A German navel base at Ostend on the Belgium coast would have been especially menacing to Britain, since it is only a quick ferry ride across the channel to England. It would have been easy for the Germans to launch a successful invasion of Britain from theis point, once they had completed the modernization of their navy and increased its size, which they would certainly have done. Amazing how so many professorial "experts" om history are unable to grasp such self-evident realities.
Preemptive war to prevent something that might happen? Sound strategy. When has that ever gone wrong?
Outstanding content. Subbed.
It's so frustrating how short sighted British imperial policy was at the height of the empire - a world empire run for the sake of owning opponents in your old boy's debating chamber.
It's not without precedent however to have a major empire run by a mercantile/ patrician oligarchy via a deliberative assembly - Athens, Cartage, the late Roman Republic, the Netherlands and the modern USA all spring to mind.
It's inconceivable that Britain after the civil war could have been ruled by a succession of Cromwells, but we might have had a more robust and far sighted monarchy making our policies more far sighted if not for the Glorious Revolution and the Hanoverian succession.
Third-ish and only 12 minutes late, to prevent a Civil-War in Ireland. That did somewhat succeed I guess.
For a while at least.
The tribe wanted a brother war
Shhhh... stop noticing!
Tell me you didn't listen to the live without telling me you didn't listen to the livestream.
I just understood that the British went into WWI to assist mainly the French, the alternative to supporting the French would be German dominance of France & western Europe ! !
Of COURSE the Tories were largely responsible for our involvement in WW1. OF COURSE they would be. Why wouldn't they be? smh.
Britain entered world war one because of alliances and could have easily sat out the war had it not been for them
Britain joined the first world war because geostrategic imperative required it to always ally against the strongest land power on Europe. To make sure they could never become secure enough to fully fund a Navy to match Britain. Spain>France>Russia>Germany
Britain could also not allow any great land power to seize the Port of Antwerp. Being located inland on the Scheldt river with direct access to the English channel, made it secure against direct bombardment from the sea.
This is a poor video which ignores the pertinent to ramble on about Ireland.
The British Empire honestly does not get enough heat. They were the cause of a ton of horrendous shit. Not to mention how Churchill was so blood thirsty before WW2....
Regardless of the evidence, I blame Napoleon.
Nobody relied on deliverance from the U.S in the First World War. They only had 100,000 KIA with 50% of this being to Spanish Flu. The war was won by in 1918 due to the Germans exhausting their armies during the Spring Offensive and then Foch deciding to counter attack at the Second Battle of the Marne. This was followed by a string of victories and rapid advances across the front and pursued the Germans back to the border. These armies had troops from a number of nations including America, but they were overwhelmingly French and also British. Some people portray the First war in the narrative of the Second, in which the majority U.S dominated allied army landed in Europe (D-Day) etc and pushed the Germans out.
With 50,000 KIA we may imagine 150,000 wounded, or perhaps more. If we assume half were not wounded (an atrocious attrition rate) then that is several Corps worth of troops. That would have made a difference
@@juliantheapostate8295 compared to the 8 million French and 4 million British armies on the western front it is irrelevant.
Would have Germany launched the Spring Offensive in the first place if it was not worried about ending the conflict before American soldiers could gather in large numbers on the Western Front?
Perhaps if American stayed neutral the Germans would have focused on the Balkans to reconnect to their Ottoman allies, or perhaps against Italy to relieve pressure off of the Austrians?
@@FeHearts They would have attacked westward as soon as they defeated Russia in order to end the war. The whole point of the Western Front was about Germany invading France. They tried to do it in 1914 but lost at the Battle of the Marne and again in 1916 at Verdun.
The primary impact the US had was financial. Britain was on the cusp of running out of secured loans, America would not accept unsecured loans, and France/Italy/Russia borrowed through Britain. Britain could not not expanded its economy and war effort in 1918, France would have had a sharp decline instead of maintaining, and Italy would have been forced out.
You also have the impact of America joining the blockade which prevented the CP from getting food from America through neutral countries. Then there was the intangible factor of morale.
I think Britain joining WWI was bad in hindsight, but understandable. If Germany won WWI, they'd be the masters of Europe. France would have been pacified after losing 2 wars in a row with Prussia/Germany, and Belgium and The Netherlands would fall into the German sphere of influence since they have no chance of defending themselves. The peace terms Germany gave Russia may have been more extreme, and the remaining independent Balkan states would also have to cave in to German demands since nobody will defend them either (this probably isn't an issue since Austria-Hungary was going to fall apart regardless of the outcome of WW1, but thats a hindsight argument). With Britain remaining neutral, Italy would have either stayed out of the conflict or reaffirmed the triple alliance. None of these imaginary circumstances directly threaten the British Empire, but the outcome of the war may have challenged Britain's economic dominance in the continent and Germany reaching great power status may have caused bigger problems for Britain in the future.
The notion that Germany would have let Belgium be anything but a satellite state without British intervention is preposterous.
A S S
Brilliant
"With regard to the Empire our methods were not overly innovative, we merely adopted the strategy of Genghis and applied to them the steam engine." - Beyondegra. G. Maj circa 1884
I haven’t been able to find anything relating to “Beyondegra G Maj”… is this the correct spelling?
Jews. Next question.
I love your work, you do a great job.
But please do me three favors if you would be so kind.
1 - Drink a large glass of Water before recording
2 - Sit a little further away from the mic
3 - Maybe invest in some nice mic-filter
Cause the gulping inbetween sentence and smacking of Lips is slowly driving my crazy.
I am currently watching your entire Backlog of Videos, again great work.
But after hours I kinda snapped and aks you most humble to review my request.
Just speed it up (1.25) and concentrate
First World problem.