Ever Present Danger: Churchill, the Rise of German Power & the Outbreak of the First World War
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 11. 2014
- Dr. John Maurer, United States Naval War College, presents, "Ever Present Danger: Winston Churchill, the Rise of German Power, and the Outbreak of the First World War." Presented at the National World War I Museum, in cooperation with The Churchill Centre.
Recorded October 9, 2014 in J.C. Nichols Auditorium at the National World War I Museum at Liberty Memorial.
For more information about the National WWI Museum and Memorial visit theworldwar.org
Wonderful presentation. However, I have to point out something which I have only recently learned. That pic of Hitler in the crowd was put there by Hitler's photographer, Hoffman, much later. That famous toothbrush moustache was only used at the end of the war. If you look at Private Hitler during the Great War, his moustache was a, so to speak, Keiser Wilhelm moustache.
He changed it so his gas mask would fit better appropriately
@@GuinessOriginal If only he hadn't fixed his gas mask!
Also, the famous photo that supposedly presented Gavrilo Princip being arrested (48:15) by the Bosnian Police, it is neither of Princip, nor it is an arrest, nor it is of Police brutality. It is of a Serbian being protected by the Police from attacks by the Bosnian People which were furious because the assassination. The photographer was a rascal that fake-sold the photo as if it were taken in the crime scene while Princip was being brutalized. The photographer made a fortune syndicating the photo in all Europe and the World.
Fantastic presentation
good work
How about the battle of Spionkop? Scorch Earth? The 1902 launch of the first Submarine? The Blockade of German and Austrian harbors 1904-1919? Or the invasion of Russia via the Baltic Sea 1919/1920? The financial attack on German Mark 1925?
thank you
German naval preentive strike against the grand fleet? That's the first time I hear about this, and it makes little sense in the context that the germans were actualy hoping Britain would remain neutral.
If they achieved a Port Arthur type result though... Definitely an interesting idea.
The Germans were "hoping" Britain would remain neutral, but apparently not expecting it.
There were plans of an British strike against Germany like they did against Denmark in Napoleonic times. I think, he meant that
It's insane how quickly German ports worldwide were blockaded, radio towers seized, all comms shut down for boats still at sea
Any "pearl harbor" attempt would be impossible to coordinate at the scale needed. It's like saying "imagine pearl harbor, but Japan arranged it when all the aircraft carriers were there"
Sooo good🎉
Brilliant speech
Very interesting speach
The amount of animus directed toward this gentleman and his fine lecture in this comment section is overwhelmingly juvenile. I doubt that any of these respondents could themselves muster the expertise, patience, nerve, or verve to research and present as fine a lecture as this man has.
Its a good lecture, but a lot of it is incorrect.
@@tashatsu_vachel4477If a lot of it is incorrect (and it is) then it's not a good lecture.
@@gandydancer9710 - He is an OK speaker and can hold an audience which is important. Sadly he has relied on certain materials as being correct due to the name of the source, an all too common mistake.
Too bad the Germans didn't realize that they'd lost The Great War in 1915 at the Battle of the Marne. They could have sued to for peace and saved their people a lot off suffering.
？？？？？？？？？？？ They did and so did the allies... check out the ambassador's book
Why is the photo of Hitler in the square a fake? In those days he didn't have a toothbrush mustache but a Wilhelm style mustache as shown on other pictures.
I have seen him w t Wilhelm. But apparently he changed it, as I have seen him w t toothbrush in this pic dozens of times.
@@paulbabcock2428 As I hear it, Hitler's WWI gas mask didn't fit well over his KW mustache, so he trimmed it down while he was still in the trenches.
@@billolsen4360 Er ist wieder da?
Wow. I’m a history novice and this coherent and easy to understand lecture may be prescient. I only hope our world leadership will be intelligent enough to take to heed; history implies, NO.
Pride got all these countries into WWI. Millions of teenagers have to die in wars that old men invented based on pride. This won't change as long as humans exists under the world system of their own making.
That's because history never repeats but it does follow patterns. Easy to recognize in retrospect but as things are developing not so much, since there's always unique circumstances and the march of technology happening in the background.
In WWII France actually tried to follow historical precedent and it led to them being defeated in six weeks, although it was really the fault of the socialist government that absolutely starved them of modernization equipment to be able to communicate effectively. Their problems went all the way down to the barest of social levels with the class struggle manifesting as a conservative army and hyper liberal government and both fought to undermine each other. Not the best way to start off a war.
Anyway, back to what you were saying. Our world leaders arent stupid. Willfully oblivious, corrupt, uncaring and hoping to take advantage of a crisis to further their own means? Sure. But stupid? Not most of them.
Free trade - even if unilateral - always benefits a nation far more than a system of protectionist trade tariffs. Also the British Empire still had a greater GDP than the United States at this time, if not by much.
Long-term benefits are not as clear as short-term benefits. When I hear people claiming it "always" benefits a nation, I suspect they are simply parroting abstract textbook theories and deliberately ignoring real-world data.
@@danieltemelkovski9828 absolute nonsense, when people extol the virtues of tariffs I know thy are just parroting a propaganda narrative that suits their particular agenda, and have absolutely no knowledge of economics or history. Ever heard of the great depression?
@@danieltemelkovski9828 yup
Please provide your real world data. If anything its protectionist policies have the short term benefit followed by a long term drawback. The only time they have ever worked long term is if there is an extraneous factor like incredibly limited natural supply, hoarding of technological secrets or international agreement allowing them to do so, such as Tequila only being made in Mexico or rare earth metals requiring significant subsidies before they reach the economy of scale that allows them to be profitable in the global market. By definition free trade is more adaptable to changing market conditions whereas protectionist policies more often than not are not repealed or changed in time to prevent a worse secondary economic effect than what they initially tried to prevent. The Corn Laws and Smoot-Hawley tariff are prime examples of handcuffing your economy leading to wide scale disruption when the economy is prevented from moving with the speed required to balance the situation.
Please, provide your data and the economists who have provided peer reviewed studies of the benefits of protectionist policy.
TL;DR- Googled "Do any economists support protectionist policies?" One immediate response is "There is a consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare" and then several other results with variations of that phrase.
Love Churchill lectures. Thank you
Ever Present Danger-that describes old Winnie to a T.
What a great presentation. Love finding gems like this.
Very instructive lecture. Thank you ...
48:13 That is NOT Gavrilo Princip being arrested.
That claim was a hoax by the photographer.
The famous photo that supposedly presented Gavrilo Princip being arrested (48:15) by the Bosnian Police, it is neither of Princip, nor it is an arrest, nor it is of Police brutality, nor it was taken in the crime scene. It wast taken a few blocks away, and it is of a Serbian being protected by the Police from attacks by the Bosnian People which were furious because the assassination. The photographer was a rascal that fake-sold the photo as if it were taken in the crime scene while Princip was being brutalized. The photographer made a fortune syndicating the picture in all Europe and in the World.
Yes, Churchill was first lord of the admiralty during WWI, HE WAS FIRED AFTER THE GALLIPOLI FIASCO.
And he then went to the front as a soldier. Name one modern politician who would do that.
I don't remember Churchill as having been in combat in WWI. I seem to remember he visited France and I think also visited the actual war zone for maybe a few hours, but I don't remember Churchill doing any actual fighting on a front line in that war (although Churchill did see combat the action against the Mahdi in the Sudan and I think in one or two other military actions before WWI).
Remember? Are you 130 years old? What his biography tells us is that he commanded the regiment of Scot Fusiliers with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel, at least three months on the front, and had a near death incident when shrapnel fell few yards from him.
I have to remember not to ever try to listen to this Dr. again
Many, many quotes have been attributed to Churchill, which he never uttered.
"I never said that!" - Churchill (January,1965)
Slight correction: the German army was not ‘defeated’ in a military sense. There was an armistice signed in November 1918. It’s terms were dictated by the allied forces/ entente though, followed up with the Paris Peace Conference and the Treaty of Versailles
This sounds somewhat like the “stab in the back” idea. The German Army was defeated; they were unable to make headway in France, and even that granted, the home front is a necessary component to waging modern wars, which are mainly economic
@@styrofoam9981 They were not defeated, they caught the flu, saw the US soldiers arriving, they thought 'THAT'S IT' called Wilson to make a deal according to his 14 points, he said: banish the Kaiser and become a republic, they did and went home, all was good for them. Sadly, he did nothing (some say he caught the flu) and let Clemenceau go crazy, that was not what they were promised, they got screwed. Worse, the British kept the food blockade on until the end of Versailles in June 1919, 600,000 Germans starved to death so that's why they had to sign, once again they were tricked.
czcams.com/video/f_1SRWFV8fo/video.html
czcams.com/video/e79Kg9umrIw/video.html
Exactly
Lol, if terms are dictated to you, you lost.
Luddendorf disagreed. He essentially admitted defeat, the German army was in full retreat across the entire western front with the 100 day offensive by the Allies and he noted clear signs of disintegration and severe collapse in morale among the ranks.
Yes, 1918 did not end with a full occupation of germany like 1945, but the German army was defeated and the German high command knew they were defeated. They knew that before 1918. They knew that their last throw of the dice for victory were the spring offensives of 1918 and if they failed germany has to sue for peace as the defeated because from there on out they would get crushed because germany had no reserves in men and material left.
The difference really was the chance for a negotiated peace in 1918 vs. the total surrender peace of 1945, the later in historic context being the far less common way of how conflicts ended, but grew with the rise of nation wars where populace's demanded greater victories to justify the murderous price they paid in the millions.
It is one of the cowardly acts by Prussian high command at the end of the war that they threw the ball to the civilians so they did not have to "dirty" themselves with defeat and could blame others after they did precisely what they recommended: Sue for peace at all costs. From there they then spun the stab in the back myth for their memoirs.
I worry because you guys got your own ideas about the way things should be and none of them are good for me
Nein
We neglect the First World War because America got in at the very end... the irony is, the Americans unquestionably won the war for the Allies by getting in it when they did. The Germans and the Allies were exhausted when the Americans entered, and the American entry had to absolutely demoralize the German nation... it was sort of like two boxers going at it for 14 rounds and then having a fresh fighter step in at the finish
This guy lectured like he’s a room full of college freshmen. Ie light on detail and analysis
"Light on detail and analysis"??? You, obviously, must be kidding. All the quote and image slides used to support this gentleman's in-depth analysis meant nothing to you? I can only imagine that you were the kid who fell asleep in the back row during every lecture.
@@mr.bigglesworth2562 I agree, this is not only detailed, but is riveting and very clear. Makes me a little nervous about the situation in the world right now, with regards to Comparative defence spending
Great Britain is allowed to have a large navy to protect its empire, the US is allowed to have a large navy to protect its empire, but Germany is not allowed to have a large navy to protect its commercial trade? Looks likely bigotry to me.
Germany's fleet toward the end of the Naval buildup in 1911/12 was well over twice the tonnage of the American fleet, and it was well understood the only purpose for expanding it to that point - or beyond - was to challenge the British on the high seas, or at least, to coerce Britain diplomatically because she wouldn't want to suffer the losses in warships it would take to win a major engagement with the Kreigsmarine.
German merchant ship owners told the German government that they didn't need a German navy to protect their ships -- nor did they want a navy.
Britain provided freedom of the seas, and the other nations of the world didn't even have to pay for it.
@@kevinbyrne4538 'freedom of the seas' is one way to put it. 'a stranglehold on world trade' is another.
As Churchill pointed out, Germany was the foremost land power in Europe with an insignificant , money-losing overseas empire containing hardly any Germans. For it, a fleet and empire were luxury. For Britain, a much smaller country with a commercially crucial, gigantic empire with many millions of Anglo-Celts living in it, a fleet was a vital necessity.
@Ancient Numbat: The Realist view is rightly that all prattle about "rights" is juvenile.
The German navy plus the widened Kiel Canal meant that Britain couldn't afford a Baltic adventure. so perhaps that was what it was for. It was certainly incapable of protecting Germany's trade from a British blockade.
The economist M Keynes had already foretold of the impending war and Churchill just echoed those thoughts. However it isn't the liberal economist theorist that's remembered, the conservative white Christian that's quoted.
BS ..
Poor lecture. Any middle school drams coach would fail Dr. Mauer for over dramatizing his speech to the point of being distracting. Someone tell him the lecture was supposed to be about history and Churchill, not a stage for immature acting. The picture he presented of the assassin's arrest was INACCURATE. That picture was taken the next day of the arrest of another suspect. The police had alerted the photographer, who sold it as the arrest of the actual assassin. This was known a few weeks after the event. A historian needs to be accurate on such a well-known fact.
Personally I am totally fine w his level of drama. But I will give you points for noting the problem w the arrest pic.
And I suppose you would be happy with a sleep-inducing monotonic drone. This gentleman's use of the rhetoric of interest and dramatic inflection made history come alive for me. Bravo!
No, if you got brains you can follow the content and not get distracted by hyperbole. It is a skill of a narrator to make the material sound riveting and he does a great job at that. The layout, narrative and clarity are great
What a load western oligarchy propaganda 😅😅
Britain was never a true super power. On the sea yes but on land they couldn’t hold any real land or armies on the European continent. Their commonwealth was third world countries they conquered or tribal lands they colonized. They were a fading empire by the time ww1 came. If it wasn’t for the French, the Belgian forces that never stopped fighting even after being overwhelmed, Russian for a few years, the American supplies and finally America entering the war helped Britain and France remain powers.
Well, Britain is a sea power. They’re not not a superpower just because their power rests on the navy. And they weren’t fading before ww1 in my opinion; the Boer war was tricky for them, granted, but at the same time one could argue (and I do) that the increases in the German Navy following the Kruger telegram of that war, were commissioned because the Germans realized that they could not make good on the Kaiser’s promises within the telegram. Germany can’t get out of the North Sea without Britain’s allowance, and France is in a similar position-the British were poised to crush the French in the fashoda crisis and gobble up their colonies, and the French could do nothing. Certainly the continental superpowers of the time would disagree with you; much was made by Germany of trying to prevent an Anglo French entente in 1905 (1st Moroccan crisis), and British support in the balkans of the Ottoman Empire was much of what kept Russia from annexing much of their territory.
@@styrofoam9981 Great Britain had the privilege of being the only naval power, all other Great Powers dependen on ground armies first so usually ended up with no resources to spare for the navy.
Case in point Germany and France. Germany stopped the naval race when they realized they needed those resources to expand their ground armies because the French-Russian alliance was looking ever more menacing.
And France during the 18th century essentially stripped their fleet of manpower first because they wanted those officers and gun crews in the army. That was the one difference during the Revolutionary War, for a single instance they decided to keep the affair exclusively naval and colonial.
What a load of Rubbish. The BEF fought valiantly until exhausted and then the Commonwealth effectively took over - Canada, India, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. 2nd Rate Power indeed! From The Land of Oz
Hail Germany!
More propaganda? Oh goodie
Can you be more specific?
@@davidsabillon5182 Well there's the nonsense about how the High Seas Fleet was a provocation, for a start.
@@gandydancer9710 How dare they build a naval fleet that was 2/3 the size of Britain's and an army that was 200,000 men fewer than France's army? Them Germans are just just very warlike.
Belgium found out just how peaceful the Germans were..