Why World War I Caused World War II | Total War
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 02. 2021
- The Second World War was a war in which massive armies advanced, confronting whole populations with impossible choices. The manufacture of weapons transformed industry and the workforce; area bombing campaigns reduced cities to rubble; sieges doomed populations to starvation; racial policies sponsored campaigns of genocide. Told through archive footage and expert interviews, we learn how WWII shattered the boundaries between home-front and battlefield.
It's like Netflix for history... Sign up to History Hit, the world's best history documentary service and get 50% off using the code 'TIMELINE' bit.ly/3a7ambu
You can find more from us on:
/ timelinewh
/ timelinewh
This channel is part of the History Hit Network. Any queries, please contact owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com
The theory about WW1 never really ending and the Treaty of Versaille being a temporary armistice makes a lot more sense now after watching this.
I think that’s the proper way to look at it.. WWI was largely based on alliances and overconfidence, but it begat a world divided by ideology… The peace was never gonna last, IMO..
@@jacobjones5269 Too bad we can't get rid of the liberals like that today in America
@@thehillbillygamer2183 these people today aren't even liberals they are Marxist most are more like cult members!
It's not really a theory. More of an opinion. But at this point you could even argue it's more fact than opinion
Its not finished until ww3 until the last of the Christendom is destroyed
I like to see historians be brutally honest about their own country. Shows we’re free.
It's an old film
Good for you.
-China.
The inter-war years is one of the most significant periods in world history. Well documented and well presented, really good documentary. Thanks for the effort.
"This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years". -Marshal Ferdinand Foch
Yes, he believed the Treaty was not harsh enough.
He was wrong regarding the treaty though...it was the brutality of the treaty that set the stage for the rise of Hilter and the national socialist party. Woodrow Wilson understood this and America was the only power not to sign the treaty. The British feared this as well and only reluctantly signed it.
Germany had no idea that going into the signing they were going to be forced to admit ‘fault’ for the war and owe gigantic reparations...this was jumped on them once they got to the table. The REAL reason we jumped this on them was because France owed a huge monetary debt to the US and Britain that they were not going to pay. After the cease fire this became clear, and we sought to find ways to make Germany pay the French debt instead. Even though they didn’t know it was going to be part of the terms, we wrote it in before they got there as legal justification for war reparations, they had to admit ‘fault’. Several of the German delegation literally fell down upon reading the terms of the armistice.
@@mamavswild You are so wrong it's difficult to know where to start ...
1) You appear to be confused between the Armistice, signed 11 November 1918, and the Treaty of Versailles, signed 28 June 1919. The Armistice was the temporary ceasefire that ended hostilities, the Treaty was the document that ended the war.
2) The fact that Germany was going to have pay reparations was a clause stipulated in the Armistice, so Germany knew from November 1918 that she was going to be required to pay reparations.
3) On 24 April 1919, Germany submitted an offer for reparations she was prepared to pay. This offer was for 50 Billion Gold Marks. (Germany, in fact, never even payed half of this amount).
4) America _DID_ sign the Treaty of Versailles. The American Senate refused to ratify the Treaty due to the League of Nations clauses within the Treaty, which included the requirement for "Collective Security". This would require, in the event of an attack upon any one Nation of the League, the need for all other Signatory Nations to act in defence of said Nation. The American's objected to this.
5) On August 25 1921, America signed a separate peace Treaty with Germany. This Treaty essentially bound both Nations to the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles (1919), with the clauses binding America to the League of Nations Covenants removed.
@@bolivar2153 No I’m not wrong; I summed things up because I don’t feel like writing a doctoral dissertation. I know the different between the armistice and the treaty and theres a HUGE difference between debt and massive GDP crushing reparations. They had no idea that they were going to be saddled with ‘war guilt’ at the treaty and this was an understandable emotional strain on both their honor and duty to their own soldiers who had died. Since your spamming me on another comment I’ll just go ahead and ignore this one.
Foch was right about the timing only because he knew the treaty needed to be Scorched Earth or NOTHING. leaving Germany with any means to extract revenge over such a cruel and unjust treaty would endanger France; hence, his insisting on a Scorched Earth treaty (which isn’t a treaty at all)...we all know he wanted to fight all the way to Berlin and quite honestly, it would have been better he do that or no treaty at all.
And as an American soldier, I have to say that France got what it deserved when it was crushed in the Blitzkrieg. As much as I despise N-Germany and their horrible policies, they did ONE great and awesome thing and that was having the surrender signed in the same rail car that the Germans thought they were going to get a fair deal out of 20 years earlier. WELL PLAYED!!! 👏👏hahahahaha. 🤣🤣
It was France and their insistence on revenge that set the stage for the rise of Hilter. Revenge never works. Ever. And their arrogance but anyone who has ever worked with the French like I have knows that they are soul-crushingly arrogant.
But you’re one of those long-winded dudes that always have to have the last comment in order to ‘win’ so have at it. You’re on ‘ignore’ LMAO
@@mamavswild "Revenge never works."
It worked for Stalin. He didn't forget Brest-Litovsk either. "WELL PLAYED" ??
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." War is the single constant in human history.
So very true
@@andrewmorton395 "I don't know the weapons that will be used in the 3rd World War, but the 4th will certainly be fought with sticks and stones," Einstein. "the farther we get from a terrible war is inevitably the closer we come to a worse war." Greek I believe. "A warrior's peace, like a cherry blossom bloom, is ever fleeting." Japanese proverb. Sad there are so many quotes from war.
@MyImList Depends on whether you're a warrior I suppose.
I saw that quote more than once on a Call of Duty death screen.
Also (just paraphrasing)
“Those who seek peace must first prepare for war.”
@@tommyl.dayandtherunaways820 Vegetius! Old Roman general and a very apt phrase for the times. God Speed brother! 🇺🇸💪
Field Marshall Foche said after the Versailles treaty was signed said "This is not a peace treaty it``s a twenty year armistice." How right he was nearly to the day.
The history channel could learn a thing about integrity from this channel
They prefer to create videos about anunaki aliens
Too late...
It isn’t the discovery channel that is horrible. It’s the idiots that watch their programming. They are the ones I hate.
Probs find half the stuff in here is from there just given perms to re upload it by the production behinde the documentary
The history Channel is a joke
Thank you to all involved in the upkeep of this channel!
You mean nicking documentaries and falsely presenting them as new, up to date and worth the effort when they're so old that Arminius was still in shorts when they were made.
Indeed
@@rosiehawtrey How do you know they're not buying the rights to these documentaries? They're advertising in the beginning and theyre not getting taken down by CZcams so maybe that's the case. And also, it's a documentary about world war 2. Who cares if they were made 50 years ago the facts of the war hasn't changed since then lol
Keep up the good work. I have used a couple of these in my History classes.
P0pppppppppppppppppppppp0ppppppppppp
Total War is nothing new in war history. Siege with starving and blockage of supplies, but also destruction of livelihood for the civilian population are old tactics. The only new to the 20th century has been the massive and arbitrary air bombardment.
However, the ultimate intensity of total war, like seen in this film, probably didn't occure until the American Civil War, as it became crucial during its last phases, but with this experience leading to a follow up in the US campaigne against the indigenous peoples. This was not only about Genocide, but Ecocide. At one time, there were a minimum of 30 million Buffalo roaming the great American plains, woodlands and mountain valleys. The great Buffalo slaughter increased dramatically after the Civil War, as the offensive to destroy the indigenous cultures then escalated. The bloody fight between the Blues and Greys had fundamentaly established the tactics of total war, and it was now also used against plains nations, like the Lakota, the Cheyenne and the Comanche, who's basic livelihood was the Buffalo. In only about 40 years, but with a peak between 1865 and 1875, as many as 60 million or more of these animals were killed by the Euro-Americans, in different types of mass hunts, either as pure contests, for supply of skin and bone, or simply to feed troopers.
Although the US administrations and military leaders in many ways left it circumstancial, this was very much deliberate, activated and encouraged as a strategy by governments, under the military leadership of former civil war general William T. Sherman and general Philip Sheridan. Along with the more industrial side of it also sports hunts were common, with sports hunters being invited from Europe to kill Buffalo. By 1885 there were fewer than 1.000 Buffalo left, with near only 300 in the wild. Also millions of Pronghorn antelopes were killed in the same period. This is less known, but there were perhaps some 50 million of them, but less than 20.000 alive in the early 1920's.
Great info
@@dickmonkey-king1271 Thanks. It's easy to imagine that the Clausewitz theories also was curriculum at West Point.
First you say there were 30 million buffalo but farther down you say they killed 60 million buffalo so I’m curious which is it? I had always heard there were roughly 50 million so at least you’re close lol
Now explain to me why in the comment section of a video that is discussing the part of WWII often overlooked to the point of saying the war started in Sept 1939 with the invasion of Poland. Which of course is labeled as being Eurocentric. Why are you going on about how the indians in America were being starved out by the Euroamericans who were killing all the buffalo to near extinction. Oh and don’t forget the antelope that were also killed. Most or almost all of what you were saying had absolutely nothing to do with what the video was about.
I hope you aren’t one of those people who have a particular topic or cause that they constantly bring up even when there’s absolutely nothing connecting what’s being shown in the video with their chosen cause. Could you not simply watch the video and maybe learn something from it that has nothing to do with your usual topic of interest? I don’t suppose you also claim to have indian DNA coursing through your veins do you? No offence but that’s usually what gets brought up not long after someone has made statements such as yours. It’s tiresome and borders on the absurd when they of course claim to be a descendent of an indian princess lol
And then I usually explain to them that there were no indian princesses at all.
What are your sources?
@@kareem4u - Plenty.
It failed because people tragically and sadly don't want to live with one another in peace.
I’ve been really interested in history for the past months and all I’ve learned is that war is the dumbest most unnecessary thing ever
@@papanutt1327 War is fought for one of these reasons: Resource, Religion, or Personal ambition.
@@winters1942 yeah Ik but their are peaceful ways to getting all those things, and that still doesn’t replace the fact that it is really dumb
Q
@@papanutt1327 then you've learned nothing.
I enjoy these documentaries, very much I hope you continue to show them,they are very educational.
Chiang Kai-shek blowing up the levees and dams on the river drowning thousands of his own people to slow the Japanese advance. is really jaw dropping.
Not really. Look at the brutality of Chinese Emperors and Chinese Communism. Chinese ruling powers have very little regard for human lives of their own.
I was completely unaware of all this, coming from someone who loves learning about history, in particular having been interested in both the World wars for 20 years since high school. After watching this I am even more thoroughly appalled at what the Japanese did back then in addition to what I already knew about the WW2 atrocities. And also China for doing that to their own people. Can't believe I didn't know much about these events before, other than hearing about it in passing without much detail.
My grandpa fought in the US army in the South Pacific for 3 years and his standpoint on the Japanese army makes even more sense now after watching this.
Great Channel!
Excellent documentary! Thanks! The inter-war years are hugely important and don't get anywhere near the attention they deserve.
19:46 that march though ..🤣🤣🤣
Wars are inevitable and consistent phenomenon , we only have intermittent periods of peace ( some large ,some short ) .
True! But the next one will be the last major war in hundreds of years. Billions will die and civilization across the planet will be destroyed and set back hundreds of years into a new dark age
@@AT-wj5sw Nah i think it'll be quick and brutal. Like you said, billions will die, but maybe with just a handful of bombs lol
War is generally recent. Most of human history we did not get into aggressive conflicts
@@dcj991 What???? I know the concept of war is new but cavemen would kill each other all the time.
Only if men carry on starting them 🤬
These are like my favorite documentarys
Because Humans, any other answer fails to grasp the question
This is the only comment here worth reading
@@joshhayne It's not worth reading if you're looking for any hope. "Because Humans"? That means we're doomed? And even if you think that's right, why is it worth saying?
Sounds like "because humans" is your easy answer to a lot of questions. Opinion & impression.
More like...because of sin
@@jimkluska253 found only in humans ( in the physical world...before someone starts their nonsense)
Did anyone else notice the wicked grin on the face of the man test firing the machine gun at the 4:23 mark
Smedley Butler knows why it failed. He wrote a book between the wars describing why.
Legendary Marine that we learn about in boot camp.
"between 2 wars" is a great Timeghost channel series of videos here on YT
I thought he was gonna fly the plane and keep talking lol
😁
I have heartburn very badly.
Hahaha! Indeed.
One word: ego. Either broken down or built up.
The most notable reason for the failure of a true peace accord stems from an unwillingness of European nations to recognize the potential of the concept of self determination of a nation state, instead insisting upon their previous concepts of financial gain through expansionist imperialism at all costs. So while there was a breakup of the Austria/Hungarian and Ottoman Empires, the rest scrambled to take over the control of areas of the breakup for their own financial gain.
Absolutely right.
In one word....GREED
True True Walter U.
Isn't it ironic the British judging Italy for invading Ethiopia while the y had forcefully grabbed so much of African land mass , India & Carribbean islands🙄🤨
@@muurisoras5878 Thieves with a silver tongue.....They are nothing but pirates and vandals that then create laws that bury and protect the truth in in the ideology of the greater good and their own religion .....thats the way power has changed hands since written history began ....written and verbal language are like the wind
Very well made!!!!!
Good documentary
Most excellent explanation of what led to WW2
This was good, because it wasn't so Germany centric as other documentaries are. You really got to see different things going on in the interwar years.
It failed because of this thing called The League of Nations
What does that mean? Because the league existed or because it failed in its mission?
@@lawsonj39 Maybe both.
Depends on what you perceive the real goal of the League to be. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that the money behind the hatched plan never meant for any kind of peace that you may want
Nah, League of nations had no nuclear powers. Today your millions man army will be nuked if you try something
@@destroyerarmor2846 you were good algebra huh?
At its core, it is intrinsic human greed
So much war and so much suffering through all of human history. But isn't it amazing that humanity has continued on and in parts of the world, thrived despite all of it? For now, at least.
Thanks
This is a very informative video and very well done, but at the same time it's kind of annoying seeing smudge on the screen and thinking it's on my phone?
Nice
History repeat itself over and over.
people repeat history
Why is it always thought that Every War will be short?
In all cases: Corrupt or incompetent politicians. Corrupt or incompetent Generals.
Wow, the fact that the Luftwaffe tested their ordnance on Spain is insane
Just because the fighting stopped doesn't mean there is peace!
Why is it that on like day one of every war the involved groups just start bombing civilians? The soldiers barely even seen combat but they just skip all the cutscenes and get straight to the war crimes smh
Because in war even the innocent must die.
Answer: The Central Banking System
answer, humans
@hfdydxydxy Indeed
It's always the bank's fault, they foreclosed on my home when I stopped paying my mortgage, it was the bank's fault!
@goyabeans So you are saying that ww1 and ww2 foreclosed on my house? NO, it was the bank!
That is the narrow American-centric view that ignores everything else that happened all around the rest of the world.
I didnt realize there was so much war during the interwar period lol
Europe had been in constant wars since the Romans, WW2 would have always happened regardless of Versailles. There may have been different sides but it was only the development the A bombs has keep relative peace in Europe since.
Until grudges and feelings of resentment are truly resolved between the people, so that they are not lead around by the nose by their leaders, there will never truly be peace. For peace is where thought of a future fight is not peace, but a ceasefire.
Then again between 1815 and 1914, the only real wars were Crimean and Franco-Prussian, neither of long duration nor deeply destructive. They didn’t learn from the horror of the American Civil War, which only got worse with 60 years of tech advances by the time WWI rolled around. Europe has always been about what to do with the Germans, keeping them from dominating the continent vexed the Romans and eventually caused birth World Wars. Now they dominate the EU, and don’t need to do it militarily. You’d think they’d eventually fight the Russians but both are in demographic free fall, and no one will be around to do any fighting.
It was only inevitable because it happened.
If there was a nuclear bomb dropped in the cold war we'd now be talking about how it was inevitable given the tensions.
Don't fall into this trap.
@@manupontheprecipice6254 what say makes sense and it's playing here in the states. Social Justice, QAnon etc. are merely temporary band aids.
That's a lie. There was peace in Europe before the A-bombs were develloped. And the creation of the EU and the intertwining of different national economies have much more to do with creating peace in Europe than the A-bombs ever did.
Britian and France would not entertain the idea of a Western European truce. Apparently the lessons of the Hundreds years war fell on deaf ears. The idea that France and Germany could not reconcile their differences is ludicrous. The Allied powers had the opportunity to recognize the martial skill and innovation of the German armed forces but refused.
And in the process ended up playing a role in creating a far worse monster. I’ll bet Marshal Petain and the other WWI vets were desperately wishing for the old German Empire and Kaiser Wilhelm when France was being subjected to a brutal occupation by the Nazis.
12:37 Look carefully at the Furhrer's hand~ XD
The Great Depression was a big reason on why the League of Nations was so weak. UK and France suffered heavily and were dealing with domestic issues. USA was in similar spot. None of these countries had the resources to invest in military expeditions until they found out it was too late. Ironically, the war likely ended the Great Depression as people had to be mobilized for war manufacturing.
The US didn't even join the League of Nations...
It wasn't the war that ended the great depression. It was the Marshall plan that helped EU get back on their feet after the war and kept its people from being bitter with empty stomachs as opposed to the aftermath of WWI.
All the Allies had to do was march into the Rhineland in 1936. Or better yet, not abrogate the naval part of the treaty in 1935
The federal reserve caused the great depression, which caused war.
It's happening again now.
@@kincaidwolf5184kind of wish we never even joined after World war 2.
Following WW I over two hundred little wars were fought before WW2. Worse than failure. The week following the fall of Saigon there were no wars.
A thing to add was that the Russian Civil War, and the subsequent wars surrounding and involving the various Russian governments, kept groups like the British Empire involved in armed conflict into the mid-1920's, and Japan never really ceased armed conflict between the wars - it died down a bit, but the Russian Whites Vs Russian Reds were very much present on the border with Korea, which saw Japan get involved militarily on numerous occasions. Further, they saw the constant conflict as demanding a war footing with their armed forces. When demands were placed upon them, as with the rest of the world, to reduce their military size and capacity (especially with the Washington and London Naval Treaties) while they were, so far as they were concerned, still involved with significant armed conflict associated with the 1st World War, it gave them a sense that they were being treated and ignored as a second rate nation on the world stage. The impact this had on their national pride cannot be understated, and is almost definitely the catalyst as to why militarisation and withdrawal from international diplomatic participation was acceptable to Japan and large portions of its population. Especially as many White Russians, finally defeated in Russia itself, with Soviet Russia actively seeking to restore it's old Imperial borders through military force, saw the Whites escape to places like Korea, and a growing sense of hostility with communist regimes (especially with the rise of Communism in China), a western world ignoring what they saw as their needs to defend themselves was all the political leverage necessary to see isolationist politics come to the fore in Japan.
Because wars are started by old men who don't have to fight in them like the young men do.
Ironically, the "old men" were veterans who fought themselves and so knew better. It didn't help.
War is good business. Invest your sons.
The only way to avoid war is to prepare for it.I can't remember who said this but Germany could have been stopped in the 1930s if the British & French politicians had had the guts
Roman General Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus in his book "Epitoma Rei Militaris"
11:19 Wow I just fell in love with a great grandma
It failed because of how Germany was treated
Noone practically even had a video camera personally clear into the 90's lol. Only the priveledged could film from home. The rest was almost all done by mainstream sources. But imagine all every thing practically that occurred through WW1 and WW11 all caught on tape in the 9021' and 40's for us to watch on youtube now. It's mind blowing how advance the world already was in every way back then. Same as it is now, just looked a tad bid more unique but yeah same ol thang basically.
I think It was an "anarchy" between 1919-1939 and that was the reason after WW2 the 2 superpower occupied almost whole Europe(and some part of Asia) to prevent any next war even only between 2 countries or any potentional agressor to take power. Similar happened after 1815 when GB kept the balance and prevent the serious wars. Before 1815 wars were almost permanent but weren't so high destructive. Even in Asia WW2 started earlier and finished later.
You clearly have no idea what anarchism is. No. Complete opposite. It was government which pushed the world into war. Government's are pretty much responsible for all the wars that have ever happened. Anarchism has never been behind any wars.
If the allies had not punished Germany so severely for a war it didn’t even start I seriously doubt that WW2 would have occurred.
This comment overlooks the unprovoked murder of civilians, mustard gas victims, expansionist invasions in favour of "bUt ThEy DiDnT sTaRt tHe wAr"
@@HebrewsElevenTwentyFive I’m not saying that the Germans didn’t do those things. All sides committed warcrimes. Practically no country was innocent.
Then why did punishing Germany more severely the second time work out? It’s not that we punished Germany to severely. It’s that we didn’t enforce the punishment. We humiliated them and didn’t back it up with force like we did after ww2
@@HebrewsElevenTwentyFive They're saying that Germany didn't start the war, Bosnia/Austria did. While Germany did do all that you mentioned, it was Austria that first declared war.
@@philipsullivan4885 I am aware of that. They were not punished for starting the war, however, they were punished for the brutal war they waged upon multiple nations.
4:25 the first time full scale mobilization occurred was actually much earlier, when Revolutionary France faced encirclement.
Not much we learned about the real causes why these treaties were so uneffective,but why the second world war began
Nobody wanted wanted get into a war trying to enforce the treaties.
Total war slogan covered Total defeat of Axis ( apartide)pacts....Total war was a doctrine that contained ,involved ( economy efforts, whole population & military efforts) systematically....heading to wars service...
A better title would be ‘the birth of total war’
Total war was born in Georgia when General Sherman marched to sea and destroyed everything in his path
@@tomaslopez2940 Siege, with blockage of supplies and starvation, as well as destruction of infrastructure and livelihood and atrocities against civilians - it's all been going on in war for ages. But yes, it's 'famous' for being used over all tactically during the last phases of the American Civil War.
Well-done, pulled no punches is assigning blame.
How could it be that a British history program remembering so much detail about the use of gas in Ethiopia can't remember the British use of gas in the Middle East years before? Perhaps Winnie had something to do with the writing, after all, he had a lot to do with the British use of gas.....
Greed and mans inability to sit quietly ....master the nervous system and calm anyone that stretches for power
What????
@MyImList 🤔.... yup! After careful thought,.. Yikes is the is the best word i can think of!.......😟
الذي جعلك تأتي بي، هو الإعداد الأساسي التي تعتمد عليه وان كان ذالك ساحر ⭐
اجعل فريق بلادك جيدا، لاستهتر بك أمام الجمهور ولكل مجتهد نصيب⭐
The treaty of Versailles.
I can’t get enough of these documentaries…
You can see the Seeds even being sewn for the Korean War… which sadly due to the American way, we would end up going to Vietnam for a war that wasn’t necessary..
Von Krieg (on war) by von Klaus wits quote conquered people's will be left with nothing but their eyes 👁️ to weep with.
I came from social list
I don't think that the line between combatant and noncombatant was erased in Nanking. It was just willingly ignored and non-combatants were treated worse than combatants. I really think this line in the documentary was poorly written, bearing unfortunate implications...Almost like: It was erased so it was "almost ok"...
Audio volume is low
No.
Well, why did World Peace failed after WWII ? After Korea ? after Vietnam? and so on, We would also ask why World peace failed after the Conquest of Gaul , after the 100 year War, the 30 year war ... the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812 there are so many time after time, we can only conclude that Humans either like war or need war / Still great video, thanks a +
People should be more nice and stuff
Great docos but they all start with him in the plane, i skip past it
The more things change,
I'm surprised this isn't at least 200 hours explaining the things as I've never seen anything worthwhile trying to expose what was going on and who wanted these things and who did not.
And so it goes.
Strategic ambiguity is generally defined as *"purposefully being vague to derive personal or organizational benefit."* Zaremba, A. J. (2010).
Or as the street would say, "sticking the finger in every pie possible everywhere, anytime, but mum's the word..."
*Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run.*
Too much intent on short-term gain, at the expense of long-term stability, leads to the foundations of an empire (any "empire") or corporation turning into the "clay" of the famous symbolism/idiom: Warrior with clay feet.
In this regard, the turn of the previous century offers many examples of "nails in the coffin" of the British Empire, and allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 to expire (see below comment), rather than morphing it into something more suitable for the times, is an example of "clay feet" rapidly being created. Along with similar turn of the century examples, like the 2nd Boer War, and not pushing for a more united Europe, being other examples of "clay feet" created which evtl. led to the topling of the "warrior" called the British Empire.
The most compelling argument (on the surface) *against* renewing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 was made by Canada. Of course the fear of being dragged into of a war between Japan and the USA via London/GB/British Empire, for whatever reason, would have hit Canada hardest. Therefore an argument against a treaty with Japan is compelling...but also false.
At the time, the issue was mainly China.
*Fact: The isn't a single example of a nation or state being "forced" into a war its hawks did not already find desirable or inevitable, etc.*
It would have been fairly simple to morph the existing Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1911, to exclude any acts of provocation or aggression by Japan. That way, in case it was Japan which was pushing for trouble, London/GB could have taken action to restrict it (by stating that Japan would be on its own if it provoked a war with the USA, and ignoring warnings in re. to such). Another factor often forgotten, is that within the British Empire, the Domininions had gained the rights to declare war themselves. Unlike colonies like India, which London held the right to declare war on behalf of, nobody could force Canada to become involved in a war, and a declaration of neutrality was always an option.
Of course, in a decent world, nobody would dare invade a neutral, so that Canada was safe under all foreseeable circumstances (at least "de jure").
*The argument "Empire potentialy drawn into a war started by Japan" at some point after WW1 is invalid, and therefore other reasons for not extending the treaty must have existed, which are clouded by secrecy even up to today.*
In regards to keeping the Anglo-Japanese Treaty intact, and granting the Japanese nation the "honor" of becoming equals at Versailles.
According to Machiavelli, it would also have been a wise step towards saving the British Empire (along with ending the short-sighted European habit of "creating pariahs per treaty"). The argument usually raised here is "yeah..but the Japs didn't want everybody to be racially equal, so duh..."
True.
The "totally un-racist" London (lol) could have outflanked the equally racist leaders in Tokyo, who just advocated "racial equality" for themselves of course, and advocated for "racial equality" as a general obligation or declaration of intent, for *all* races.
Machiavelli...
What did Machiavelli say about the real value of mercenary armies you must pay (money as incentive) to do own bidding?
*"And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress; and mercenaries doing nothing except damage." Nicolo Machiavelli, 1505*
Obviously, money is a great incentive to "sign up" for something, but it offers less incentive to die for a cause one isn't exactly a fan of...
Starting around 1900, but especially after the financial "slap on the wrist" of WW1, the Lords in London could and should have turned masses of "inferiors per desired outcome" in their crumbling Empire into a "Pound block of equals".
They could have turned the masses of "inferiors" all over the world, into "armies of equals".
The old strategies again proving themselves almost 100% correct, for when the time came (1940) GB found itself "alone on the beaches and in the hills", rather than have millions of "equals" turning up to fight for a common cause. Own previous failures, simply offered the incentive for "masses of inferiors" to "sit on the fence" to await the outcome for own causes.
Combined in mutually beneficial alliances, rather than "inferior mercenies" which came from "colonies", to create mutually protecting dominion-like independent/suzerein states in a re-organized soft-power empire was the option not taken. Unfortunately, the spineless and equally racist "hero lords" in London, unwilling to stand up to wrongs, did not understand even this most simplest of logic, and therefore lost their inheritance (Empire).
"The greatest patriotism is to tell your country when it is behaving dishonorably, foolishly, viciously." Julian Barnes
Everything you've been made to recite as a "chest thump/cool move"-moment in history, like Versailles or allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty to lapse without a replacement, simply just another nail in their own coffin of "Empire".
The gatekeepers in London (starting "around 1900"), a total failure.
*Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run.*
You don't become "the best", if you finger-point at someone "bad".
You don't become "high IQ", if you consider someone else "low IQ".
You don't become "smart", if you laugh at someone "stupid".
You don't become "more superior" if you look down at someone you've termed "inferior".
Even the meek tell themselves they are superior to the heathen. "Equality" is strategic.
"Why World Peace Failed After WWI"
Short answer: Because we (Humans) 1. Like War. 2. Are not good at peace. Choose one.
top reasons we are selfish we are greedy we are nasty
Just one??
@Lovlyoma Cooloma
Good Morning!
Your comment would hold more weight With the Cap Lock turned off.
lmfao 19:43 the Italians marching xD what a difference between them and the Germans, both in equipment and in the way they march...
Those that dont listen to history,
couldn't possibly know anything about it.
☮
human nature
It was France that insisted on the punishment clauses in the treaty of Versailles. It was also France that triggered massive support for the Nazis when they marched an army through Germany demanding reparations payments. They pillaged and destroyed along the way, it became a massive recruitment drive for the party.
The idea that Versailles was too harsh or that Germany wasn't responsible for that war have become fashionable history fare these past few decades. But Kaiser Wilhelm set those wheels in motion all for the juvenile notion of Germany finding 'it's place in the sun'. It was he who assured Austria-Hungary that it would be supported in invading Serbia. And who could blame France for wanting Germany to pay the costs? I don't. Germany itself mismanaged their post war economic and political environment. Let's stop trying to invent causes elsewhere.
Now do one called "Why World Peace Failed After WWII"
👍🏾
I’m still confused why WW1 started 🤷♂️ an archduke gets assassinated and somehow this caused the whole wold to go out of balance
It was because Russia was an ally of Serbia so they joined Serbia and Germany was an ally with Austria-Hungary so they joined too france was an ally of Russia so they joined Russia and England joined when Germany invaded Belgium
@@papanutt1327
Even though you just described it i still dont get it, its like me dropping a French pen and immediately the world decides to kill each other 🤷♂️ i can not for the life of me wrap my head around the concept
@@AJ___USA it mostly happened because technology had improved a lot from the last war and they wanted a chance to use it. So they were eager to join not knowing how bad it was going to be
WW1, unlike WW2, which at least has a clear view of who the good guys were and who the bad guys were, is much more complicated. Basically, the easiest way to understand this is that two countries got involved in a major squabble, and other countries got dragged into the conflict because they were allied with either one or the other of the squabbling countries, and were compelled to fight with them, whether they wanted to get involved or not!
It’s called human nature. It’s the same reason there isn’t any real peace between competing troops of baboons… Which is basically what we are.
perhaps its culture rather than nature: czcams.com/video/4Q-bB-qywJ0/video.html
yes, I've come across that study, a powerful example of culture rather than nature :-)
overall, good. But just a minor complaint. Germany wanted Lebensraum (room for living) which is pronunced "lay-bunz... " They were not interested in Liebensraum (room for loving) which is pronounced "lee-bunz....."
room for loving leads to a need for more room for living... if you know what I'm saying
Dissenters are always suppressed and blamed for downfall,
used as scapegoats.
Why you always in the cockpit mate?
You can't push a country, in this case Germany into a corner and her people into such desperation and expect no backlash. Also exacerbated by a Depression.
I think anyone else would react for self preservation. Peace can't b if there's no forgiveness and willingness to cooperate on all sides.
Hatred has been the cause of destruction of people's for a long time.
Remember Cain and Abel?
11:15 "stab in the back myth" wasn't a "myth" - see Balfour Declaration
38:54 the fighting in Shanghai demonstrated the indiscriminate nature or airal warfare … reminds me the day when russian plane bombed and destroyed the theatre in Mariupol, Ukraine where the people wrote the word “children” in front of it in big letters so it would be visible, yet russians killed most of people inside.
13:43
Look at that little munckin at 11:59 sneaking in to meet her idol.
Then she pops back down like a "Wack a' Mole" victim after saluting the Furer.
As always, groupies are dedicated, they find a way.
Well there's no mention of the Greco Turkish war the great fire of Smyrna or 1923 invasion of Corfu by Italy
British colleges & universities have some really strange positions. "Reader of History", "Lecturer of Research" ??? I'd love to know what, if anything they teach.
The French fleet passing 4 Italian...
The Kondor legion in no way approached the total of WWI airpower.
Hiya all! Imma ww2 nut and have noticed something that I don't know understand and I'm hoping someone else might! A insignificant question to most I'm sure but if someone else has noticed and knows why I'd be very grateful! I have noticed in all the WWII documentaries when the narrator refers to Germany they call it the motherland and when they refer to Russia it is the fatherland. If im wrong plz let me know! If anyone else has noticed it as well and/or knows why this is I so appreciate it! Thank you! So very much love and positivity...good health and much happiness to all! Love more please everyone! No more hate!!
Germans Refer to their homeland as the "Fatherland". Russians refer to their homeland as the "Motherland"
18:45 Mangia - kuo?
Maybe if the Italians invaded Manchuria.