The Lansdowne Letter (1917): The Plan to make Peace with Germany
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 04. 2022
- In on 29 November 1917, the British politician the Marquess of Lansdowne published a letter that caused a political storm in Britain. In it, he proposed bringing the war to a negotiated end, rather than fighting it to a finish.
Lansdowne's aims are complex, he was no pacifist, and has been accused of caring more than anything about the preservation of the social order. Nevertheless, it is an interesting and lesser known chapter of the the First World War, involving one of the most intelligent statesmen of the day.
Sources:
Lansdowne: The Last Great Whig, Simon Kerry
Exaggerating the Efficacy of Diplomacy: The Marquis of Lansdowne's 'Peace Letter' of November 1917, International History Review (2010), Frank Winters
#WW1, #BritishEmpire, #GermanEmpire,
You're right about the consequences of the war, but by 1917 it was far too late. Even if the war magically ended then, we had already been through the Somme and Passchendaele as you said. I doubt the social consequences to Britain would be any different, though of course if Germany kept its monarchy that would have profound implications for the future.
Undoubtedly true, though of course the German and Austrian monarchies wouldn’t have fallen, and Russia could probably still have been spared from Bolshevism, but that is of course speculation.
Even so, when you look at it from Lansdowne’s point of view, a military decision didn’t seem likely in the near future.
@@OldBritannia "Spared"? Wot? Turn off your brainwashing, communist revolution let women vote and work (they were all but slaves in 1914, but after communists gave them power to do so half of Europe gave them similar rights in 1920 scared women will become communists otherwise) and gave lots of rights the elites would never give to lower classes otherwise. If you think russia was better under tsars, read a history book for once...
With the death of Franz Joseph Austrian monarchy was pretty much dead too... Czechs and Slovaks fought for independence with Legion sponsored by Entente, Romanians in Transilvanya supported Romanian invasion, Serbs wanted to be part of greater Serbia ofc, Croats and Slovenes were about rights expansion or independency...
@@alexzero3736 It's not the Austrian monarchy, to be politically correct it is the Habsburg monarchy.
@@alexzero3736 Not true. The Austria-Hungarians both supported Charles, but they were banned from letting him take the throne again. He would have ruled the Dual-Monarchy and Slovenia and Czech/Slovakia would have likely stayed with the crown. Romania would have had to have been settled, and the Croat state would have been highly unstable.
I must say sir that this video has set a very high standard in terms of history themed videos, it is clear and concise without leaving too much out or forcing too much into the video. Bravo unto you sir, I hope to see more videos like this from you in the future!
Thank you, that means a lot, glad you enjoyed it.
it was the best and worst time to declare peace with Germany
To be honest in a way even if ww2 was more bloody and more recent WW1 was more fascinating and more drama. The different perspectives and positions of all countries and key persons a involved as well the turning point for the monarchies of old Europe, of which the UK is the only major one with monarch left (was already quite different from the more absolute monarchs on the continent). Not to mention this was also a war between Nephews, George V, Wilhelm II and Nicholas II were cousins adding to the drama
True, WW1 was the true end of the XIX century and the beginning of the XX, it changed everything, and the WW2 was a consequence of this
Germany and Neither Austria were absolute Monarchies...
@@felixjohnsens3201 Nicholas II could be described as one and the German and Austrian Monarch while not always absolute especially near their end/abolution after ww1, compared to the UK they held more power and still represented the more traditional monarch of old (this is cuz continental monarchs remained mostly in power), while the British Monarch is the answer to these changing times(transitioned into constitutional early and power has slowly been put into the hands of the parliament) (ofc this is simplified, could try to make an essay on yt)
@@MegaUMU You do realize, that near the end of the war neither the Austrian or the German Monarch had any kind of power?
@@felixjohnsens3201 ofc.... Germany was basically in control by the Military, Austria ceded control to the german Military and collapsed in itself(oversimplified). This doesn't change the fact that Germany and Austria represented the legacy of the monarchs of (Mainland) Europe and started the transition into the modern era. If germany and austria had won, monarchy would have lasted another half a century.
Another counterfactual for you; if you remove France from the Entente Cordiale as the Kingpin with Russia, taken alongside the matter of the Invasion of Belgium being moot. Would the British continue to remain aloof/removed of European Politics and the corresponding risk of a major land war or by this point in history is the whole “splendid isolation” idea a dead letter
The British couldn’t afford to remain aloof due to a bunch of reasons, starting with fear of German dominance over the continent (already starting to manifest in Bismarck’s time, though initially in the vein of a feared Russo-Habsburg-German alliance) made worse by Wilhelm II’s Anglophobia and insecurities. Once the naval arms race began under smoothbrains like Tirpitz Britain either had to end the Splendid Isolation or suffer fatal security breakdown in the British Channel.
@@vandeheyeric so you think that eventually the League of 3 Emperors would provide smooth brain Terpitz too many resources and this overwhelms British Naval Capacity? The idea I had was would be the British using their position as the preeminent Naval and Colonial Force in the world to agitate divisions within the League as well as cause Nationalist issues for something like Austria
@@constantinethe27th33 "so you think that eventually the League of 3 Emperors would provide smooth brain Terpitz too many resources and this overwhelms British Naval Capacity?'
Honestly I doubt it would work but it is probably the best chance Wilhelm and co have if they are eventually going to go up against the British (let alone the other Atlantic/Western Capitalist Powers Wilhelm rated about in between his talks of Slavs, Asians, Jews, etc). The Holy Alliance and later the League of Three Emperors provided a slid power bloc that had largely served Germany's interests- at least when its ambitions in the East were moderated- and proved maddeningly frustrating for British and French diplomacy to manage or divide it, and Russo-Prussian rapproachment probably played as much a role as any in Bismarck's successful wars of unification.
But the 1873 crisis showed that Russian forbearance had its limits, and Wilhelm's decision to throw t away when Russia had an ant-German Tsar probably solidified the Franco-Russian Alliance in a way that was not broken even given the detente on a personal level between "Willy and Nicky" and their attempts to make that more formal.
And there is the issue of profound animosity between Russia and the Ottoman Turks (who Germany wanted to woo away from Britain) and the rivalry between the Habsburgs and Russians over Balkan Dominance.
But securing he resources and manpower of Central/Eastern Europe is pretty necessary for Germany to ever hope to build up a naval force capable of defeating maritime juggernauts like Britain or the US, and it is one thing I think Hitler and the OHL twigged to correctly.
"The idea I had was would be the British using their position as the preeminent Naval and Colonial Force in the world to agitate divisions within the League as well as cause Nationalist issues for something like Austria"
Agreed, and that's pretty much what historically happened with the British playing Spoiler to first the Holy League and then the League of Three Emperors, albeit less profoundly. It didn't help that initially they viewed Russia as ther main enemy, not Germany.
But Tirpitz's decision to try and build up the German navy in order to force Britain to make concessions and deals towards Germany instead devastated Anglo-German relations worse than they already were and pushed Britain to make deals.. with pretty much everybody BUT Germany.
A League of the Three Emperors situation or at least some kind of Russo-German Detente is (barring some long term occupation of Eastern Europe ala 1917-1918) stll probably the best hope the Germans have of realizing Tirpitz's dream, but I wouldn't rae it as all THAT likely. And in any case it'd be the work of decades.
@@vandeheyeric for the setting I’m working on right now, with its roots in a prolonged American Civil war having Continental knock-on effects, a prolonged Second Empire due to the Franco-Prussian War being preempted by a failed overthrow of the aging Emperor means that critical moving piece of Franco-German hostility is neutralized. From there the main competition becomes a contest between the Continental Order led by Germany at the helm of the 3 Emps (constantly unstable but maintained via shared animosity toward the British) and the British and their Empire. To this extent, the Ottomans end up eventually in alignment with the British due to shared Russian hostility as German-Ottoman ties weren’t intimate as much as mercenary.
Mind you, the British are still trying to exploit the internal/geopolitical contradictions of the League, particularly between Austria and Russia, to break it down but without any major Allies on the Continent, it has nothing to worry for regarding the League’s Armies.
The main trigger I have for Russia rejoining the League or at least gravitating back towards Germany is a pair of twin wars in 1905. One being the Russo-Japanese where the British back the Japanese to maintain balance of power in China and the other being the Moroccan Crisis (now between Germany and British aligned Spain due to France having internal issues) flaring up into a colonial/naval war which Britain then wins.
That’s what I’ve worked out up to 1905, idk if that’s gonna end up as “start date” or just a benchmark for me to continue pushing out more history. On the matter of Tirptiz, would defeat of the Kreigsmarine by the British in 1905 discourage further naval investment or emphasize the need for it following British blockades and seizures of colonies.
And yeah the shared enemy being Britain has Russia gravitate back towards the Germans and Austrians, who also have a stake in seeing the Ottomans removed.
Another great video Old Britannia. As I see these videos pop up, I'm getting more and more eager to watch!! And before my eyes I am seeing this channel grow and grow, the content and the way in which you deliver it ticks all the required boxes. Don't forget to the Sudan and General Gordon video we talked about! :)
Thank you again. Yes don’t worry, Gordon and the Sudan is on the list ;)
"The wars of peoples will be more terrible than those of kings." That's a good quote. Sad but very true....
Except for the fact that the main Central Power belligerents were literally ALL monarchs and the Russians were monarchs at the start of the war. And in WW2, the Axis Powers and Russia... again...were all autocracies as well. This is to say nothing of the sheer massive amounts of blood shed in Europe during the 18th century all the way up until the end of the Napoleonic Wars, again all during times of monarchy. Saying that "wars of people are bloodier than those of kings" is incredibly stupid and more monarchist propagandist dribble that is willfully ignorant and ahistorical
@@MuiltiLightRider yeah, it was only Churchill who said it, and what does he even understand about geopolitics? I mean what an idiot, i'm sure some random no-name youtube commenter has a much deeper understanding of geopolitical history lmao
@@MuiltiLightRider wow, you have terribly misunderstood history I guess.
i discovered your chanel a few weeks ago, and now it is one of my favorites chanels in youtube. Even being a small chanell your quality is very high level. grettings from brazil and keep on with the good work.
Thank you, glad you're enjoying the channel.
coé mano
great video, I never heard of this peace proposal but it's sad that it never went through
Your mapping skills and research is remarkable. Informative video
Wow this channels subscribers have jumped quite a bit in a few weeks, think you had like 700 when I subscribed a few weeks ago👏
Hey Old Britannia, Me again, just wanted to say that this is another brilliant video mate!
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it again.
Can you tell me the name of the background song/music?
Whats the name of the painting in the end of the video?
oh boi its chrismas british history just boi uploaded
Informative video. Keep up the good work.
Thank you, glad you found it useful.
what accent is it? Im having a lot of trouble understanding. Is it northern? irish?
The irony is that negotiated peaces came after the next war. MacArthur said "There is no substitute for victory" in 1951. But that was going to cost much more that the US or UK were willing to pay.
Maybe the war should've stopped when the plans of every power failed. Instead of that both sides expanded the conflict by seeking new allies while recurring to ever more destructive tactics. The catastrophe was thus inevitable from then on.
You are doing great work man! Please keep making great videos
This is a well made video! I doubt France would’ve accepted any peace that left German influence in Belgium and their continued occupation of Alsace-Lorraine. If for whatever reason France was forced into a peace treaty where Germany maintained both of these things…then WWII would not be avoided under any circumstances
So long as the British don’t have to suffer the from the war I am not bothered by French and Germans fighting their war
@@Berserker3624 your 100 years too late mate
Alsace-Lorraine was not occupied. It was their legitimate land.
@@Daniel-jm7ts we can always dream that we weren’t to late to stop
@@wolfsoldner9029 sure, their "legitimate" land where they conducted an ethnic cleansing campaign
You my sir are getting a subscribe ... Also maybe considering myself a old style Whig politically 🤣
Keep this good work mate
ohh this makes me want you to do a video about the idea of the uk and france becoming one country at some point around WW2, cant remember extactly when it was
1940.
Does anyone know the name of the music used? I think I know the artist name but don't know the music name itself.
As History Unfolds, The Thin Line, both from epidemic sound.
@@OldBritannia Thank you very much!👍
Fun fact: Kerensky also did call for peace, but UK and France ignored him.
Do one on Hitler's peace proposals next!!
Human stupidity has no limits. The ordinary people were never consulted but forced to fight a war not theirs.
Seriously promising channel. What are your plans for it?
Thank you. At the minute just jumping around with topics I find interesting to improve my video making skill.
My main aim is to make a detailed series on the British Empire from 1688-1970ish. After that circle back and do a full history of England.
@@OldBritannia is this channel going to focus on British international political history or will their be internal political history too?
@@edmundironside9435 Both. Most my main expertise is admittedly in British diplomatic history, but domestic political history is definitely going to be a major factor in the channel.
I love this channel
this sounds like the perfect setup for an alternative history setting
when I watch stuff like this i.e. re: with his letter in the telegraph. Makes me wonder in 100 years there are going to be infinitely more interesting angles to look upon our current events, with future historians continually finding new articles and tweets...etc, the source material will be almost infinite
Love your vids
Thank you, glad you’re enjoying them.
Thank you for fleshing out this claim, I learned of a theory that WW1 could have ended earlier in a stalemate.
My professor argued that America ruined it (admittedly not sure about that statement).
But it sounds like the nations of World War 1 could have ended it but didn’t have it emotionally in them to do it as it was a war of absolute victory.
So I think a better argument with this information now, is…
America quickened the end of World War 1 quickened it’s end and allowed the early cultural shift or elevation of the focal point of the west to the USA.
Plus (controversial point of view admittedly) it also briefly brought Japan as part of the focal point of western culture, or the new west (east meeting west).
Which would end for Japan around the 1930’s with their war in Manchuria, and for Europe, World War 2 would cement America as the focus of Western Civilization.
I do agree that the Americans ended the war quicker but the war without the americans I feel would have ended differently, the french troops by 1918 were beginning to mutiny and if this was to go on long I suspect the germans by 1919 would be able to punch past French lines and capture paris, I feel this becuase the french soilders were exhausted and tried by near the end of the war and the only thing that ended the mutiny was the arrival of the americans but since they in this timeline wouldn't show up the soilders munity would eventually spark complete chaos or desertion in the french lines allowing the germans to swoop in defeat the now extremely disorganized french soilders and push into paris causeing a end to the war. The germans could also offer that any french soilder that were to mutiny and then surrender to germans would be given food and safety form the front lines and would receive a promise form the Kaiser himself that the germans would force to the french government to not only allow them to return to civilian life but also not very trialed as a traitor for desertion, just so the french soilders have enough motivation to surrender even quicker
@@Berserker3624 Interesting points there.
I am curious about a few things, would the Imperial Germans be lenient on the French? I ask because I know when Russia/The Soviet Union surrendered, The Imperial Germans and Austria-Hungary were not lenient but vicious, as vicious as France and the allies were to Austria-Hungary & Germany after surrendering to the allies.
I do remember that the French Army was mutinying their generals and that was a growing problem in 1918, despite France and America having the mobilization advantage against the Germans.
I know the French used cars and smaller tanks that were more user friendly, much more frequently than Germany, who did not use cars, and made tanks as big and bulky as Britain’s Tanks, (giving France a last minute technology advantage) although Germany made some advances France was able to nearly fight back with the cars and tanks, probably encouraged by American action, though without America, not sure if France would have been as motivated?
I agree with you that Kaiser William II would have used pardons and posturing as a weapon against the French Republic to sway its troops to pressure surrender, The German command may have remembered that they helped the old French Imperial Army establish the 3rd Republic and accept the unbearable defeat to Prussia and their allies, then as unified Germany helped them prevent Communism taking over France by the end of 1871.
So I wonder of the Germans would have been lenient to France?
Perhaps this would have meant the end of the 3rd Republic? As the Republic was always hostile to the united Imperial Germany (because of Alsace-Lorraine, made worse by Kaiser William II and Otto Von Bismarck’s bombastic posturing and getting a global colonial empire). So I wonder what would have become of France, like would we see a new King of France from the Prussian Royal/German Imperial Family? as Germany would have wanted a friendlier leader of France vs a continuous hostile Republic of France, or even a Communist France (which to be fair, if France had a reactionary power vacuum like post World War 1 Germany, Fascism could have taken over France, or Communism may have tried again, and possibly have won after World War 1, with a Soviet Union supporting their cause in the 1920’s vs the 1870’s when French Communists were fighting alone, in Paris).
I am also curious about Belgium and the UK, Belgium might have been punished for resisting German occupation and also for the crimes committed in Belgian Congo (Belgian leadership, especially King Leopold II were spared punishment for those crimes against humanity, with Leo’s Death and the Belgian Government taking over ownership of the colony) I feel Germany would have taken the colony and financially punished Belgium for that had they lost World War I, not sure though if Germany would have annexed Belgium (which would have scared Britain) or if Germany would have offered/forced The Netherlands to Re-annex Belgium by saying it was Dutch land wrongfully taken away from them by British Imperialism (which to Germany may have defused the situation, but would have still scared Britain as it would mean a stronger Netherlands, or that the Dutch could join an alliance with the Germans).
I also wonder if Germany would have been lenient to Britain after loosing or would they be harsh to them? my thoughts are that they may be less harsh, owing to Germany having a cordial/icy relationship with the British, as their royalty were related, and the British ultimately allied with France out of fear of Germany sharing a border via the English Channel (For Britain, France was the devil they knew, Germany was the devil they didn’t), After all, Germany didn’t plan on Britain fighting the war as their assumption was that the British were still isolationist and wouldn’t care about a war in Europe, which was proven wrong when they saw British troops in Belgium & France and that essentially ruined Germany’s plans and caused them to dig in.
I wonder about the political damage losing World War I would have caused in Britain, the obvious thing I can think of is this would probably have ruined the Liberal Party as a major political party quicker where as in real life the party was dying but not dead after World War 1, with the migration of the Middle Class to migrate into the Conservative Party, which left to Tory/Conservative domination after World War 1 (which would also see via coalition appointment in 1924, and via election in the late 20’s early 30’s the beginnings of the Labour Party as the #2 party, which was cemented after World War 2 and the 1945 Election, where as the Liberals would struggle, have a brief resurgence in the late 50’s and early 60’s, then fizzle, ally with the SDP, then die by 1988). It’s realistic to say that the Conservatives would still gain but I wonder if political backlash or strife would plague Britain after losing World War 1, plus its empire would have been at risk, as its Monarchy may have been too, many historians I read as a teenager assumed Britain may have turned Republican after World War 1 Defeat, that may have been, or perhaps a break up? though I don’t think Germany would want a hostile Britain or a hostile British Islands after the war, as with France in 1870, Germany intervened to prevent a hostile ideology, like communism, taking over its neighbor, France, and they probably would have wanted to ensure that whatever happened in the UK, be it the continuation of the United Kingdom, the Kingdom of Great Britain or some Republic of Britannia or broken republics on the British Isles, won’t then come back in revenge to blow up Berlin, or any of Germany’s allies. The Germans would have thought that they made that mistake with France, and they wouldn’t want to repeat it across the English Channel, I hypothesis admittedly.
I know Imperial Germany was partially fine with their and Austria building a wall of Kingdoms to protect them from future Soviet aggression (The new Kingdoms/Republics of Finland, Poland, Ukraine, and possibly a united Baltic Kingdom/Republic, or as many believe, annex the Baltic). Though it wouldn’t surprise me if Imperial Germany would have supported, or create, the White Russian Faction against the newly independent USSR to create a Russian Republic or restore the Imperial Russian Monarchy, essentially doing again like in France or what the allies had done in real life after World War 1, I apologize for the long response, but it is something I am curious about.
@@MrKenichi22 I honestly feel that germans promises to the french would be a half lie, since yes they remove them form the front into germany I feel they would be moved to gloried P.O.W camps were the most likely wouldn't be feed vary well or at all given the food crisis going on in Germany as a whole. I doubt the french would catch on in time to realise that they would not be realise they would be reviving a raw deal since I'm sure the germans would want to make sure the french soilders wouldn't have a reason to doubt the german offer, though a interesting tactic the germans could potentially use is that of printing leaflets explaining that they have a out now form the war and can even return to france after the war concludes as pardoned men we distribute them via planes flying to the french front and dropping them on french soilders.
I feel even with frances slight technological advantage that would not be enough to save becuase mutinies would prevent any effective defences or counter attack offenses, their tanks would most likely be captured by the germans and then shipped etheir to Berlin for study or just have the german egaled or iron cross painted on and just added to the german front, most likely the British front.
The peace negotiations would be quite harsh on the french I feel the germans would place heavy war debts on them and along with seize a fair amount of their southern colonial land to connecte even more of their Conley's they would also seize Morocco given their intrests in it prior to the war they would also seize their Ethiopian lands as to have a trade port near the red sea/canal and also take some islands in Asia to increase their influence their as well, and of cource they would force the french government to pardon all defectors that surrendered to the germans during the war
The British and Belgium's would continue to hold their ground and as the french lines would begin to rout and continue to stalemate, after the French have knocked out the war I feel the britsh would around 1920(possibly late 1919) enter negotiations with the germans seeing as the war was clearly lost and that keeping it going would only increase Britain's debt to the americans, I feel the negotiations would be quite lenient to British with most of their demands simply being a return of their colonial land the British were occupying and the complete annexation of the Belgium Congo as so the Kaiser may fulfill his dreams of creating a germans middle Africa, after that they would most likely wish to make Belgium apart their sphere and seeing how they occupied most of Belgium I would feel they would be successful in that, most likely deposing the the current king while placing someone form the Kaiser dynasty to take the crown.
I dont think for the British there would be many social consequences for them losing the war, aside from the have debt and of cource the liberal party being thrown out of office there would be no futher consequences to the society as a whole aside form them becoming more socially conservative thanks to lose of the war and liberal government being the government In power at the time, they wouldn't lose any colonial land since the germans wanted to make sure the British wouldn't want to continue the war(the reason for this is again the food crisis in germany, they would only have to much to end the war before a massive revolt erupts like seen in our timeline)
The french on the anther hand I feel would suffer a similar fate to russians, their government would become extremely unpopular and becuase of german debts they owe would would force the civilian population to join the radical left, they would join the radicals left becuase of how popular they were before the war and how popular they got after it. in mid to late 20s the second french revolution would began the government would flee to the more rural south and leave the industrial north to french rebels at which point a civil war spark wiche the communists would win, given how they have the industry and most of the army would support them given how terrible the war was for them and just how unpopular the 3rd republic was. Frances Conley's would most likely said worth french republic simply with how centralized the French was, though I do not believe they would remain for long, the germans would probably begain seizing the French Conley's with the British following after them just so not to allow the germans to gain any more power with Spainsh and italins following after them(I guess this would be called the 2ad scramble for africa) by the time the European powers would finished there would just be Algeria left mainly becuase Algeria during this time was French, and so this would what communist france would have left after they win the war. (So for any spelling errors)
All that American army saving Europe is real for WW2. For WW1 it is just propaganda myth. American army wasn't biggest nor best in WW1, American soldier was inexperienced and died in mass ... American army independence also was not useful. German army and navy were in mutiny itself in 1918. And revolution inside Germany swept old government including Kaiser away. Much more influential was Woodrow Wilsons declaration of 14 points, supporting self determination was deadly for old empires...
@@alexzero3736 You are right that Wilson undervalued the amount of troops needed earlier in the war, and their own American Front started as a blunder when their first charge ended in disaster, plus they seemed to lounge about and that got the Americans a bad reputation in World War 1 (yes America was absolutely crucial in World War 2).
Where I was getting at was many South and Central American countries also declared war on Germany in solidarity with America’s declaring war and that was making it harder on Germany and the Central Powers to continue fighting the war.
this strain would quicken the revolution that would sweep away the Imperial Government and the Military Dictatorship that governed Germany in the war and began the chaos that would cause huge change in Europe and plant the seeds for World War 2, especially after the Soviet-Polish war in the 1910’s-1920’s and the Red Russian/Bolshevik victory in the Russian Civil War.
If that would have happened Hitler would never be a thing.
The best case scenario was for Germany's quick advance into France in 1914 ending in French capitulation with little bloodshed, and then a mobile war with Russia ending quickly too so everyone would negotiate a typical peace in the continent. The Allies had to win via a war of attrition so I don't see a situation where they end the war quickly in 1914
I’m not really sure, at this point I believe unless Germany achieved total victory the Kaisers government would probably collapse, I don’t really think negotiated peace was possible for either side at this point.
@@JackTheSlayer-ok5eq In German propaganda and public opinion it fought a war of defence, so I doubt that a negotiated peace would have been seen as such a catastrophy. But democracy was coming anyway in Germany, just that without humiliation and the connection to the treaty of Versailles it might have been more stable
Landsdowne's intentions may have been admirable, but the point was moot. If in 1917, right at the point that Russia was knocked out of the war, the Allies had approached the Germans and said, 'alright, we'll let you keep the monarchy,' they would have been laughed out of the room. Germany was not going to accept anything like what the Allies would consider a 'compromise' peace until after she had already been mostly defeated. Once the Germans knew they were beaten the Allies could have made the decision not to try and overthrow the German government, but unless they were willing to occupy the entire country in support of the Kaiser, that was probably a moot point as well - and by the time the Germans would have been willing to accept, they probably would have shaved two or three months off the war at most. Perhaps pushing on to unconditional surrender as the generals wanted would have produced better results 20 years down the track - the post - 1945 experience suggests that it would have - but it also seems possible that an occupation would have generated even more resentment against the Allies in the future. So I'm not so convinced that the Allies really could have done much better than they did, even in hindsight.
As this very video shows, the german parliament passed it's own peace resolution and the population was tired of war. If the Entente offered such a deal the German military would have been forced to at least seriously consider it.
The Allies didn’t make the decision to overthrow the German Monarchy; they simply demanded that the current Imperial Autocracy-cum-military-junta be disbanded and Kaiser Wilhelm II be thrown out. But the decision to get rid of the Hohenzollern throne altogether happened as a result of the Germans, with even Ebert (who would’ve been in favor of a constitutional monarchy) being outflanked on the left and feeling pressured to declare a Republic in order to head off Bolshevik Revolution or other independent Communist/socialist factions doing the same.
@Billy McChilly The Allies DID make it clear that they were unwilling to make a deal with any government headed up by either Wilhelm II (hence the need for him to abdicate) or an unreformed Imperial Family. (which is why Max von Baden resigned). As it stands things cascaded from there, with Ebert originally not intending to declare a Republic (as a Constitutional Monarchist at heart) but feeling he had to to avoid the Council Soviet radicals stealing the initiative.
The Allies could absolutely have done better in hindsight. Not having a Kaiser wasn't really that big of an issue. If you look into German Society at the time the biggest points of contention which indirectly and directly fueled the revanchism required for WWII were:
- the destruction of Germany's territorial integrity by cutting of big chunks of territory and disconnecting Eastern Prussia from Germany
- pushing the entire fault of the war on Germany alone
Though it has to be said that these things alone weren't enough to cause WWII, taking either of these away would have significantly reduced the risk of it. To the average German back then a lot of the territorial changes felt at best like pure spite and at worst like an actual attempt of destroying Germany (especially when taking into account all the unrest happening at the same time) and its very similar with the fault for WWI. Combine all this with a massive amount of people traumatised both physically and mentally and out of a job in an economy that is in shambles, mass amounts of nationalism and slighted national pride as well as other slights by the Allies after the war, like occupying the Rhineland to literally no ones gain.
Its no wonder WWII happened.
A lot of political actions could have been taken by the Allies after and at the end of WWI to prevent WWII. It all boils down to one simple fact. No politician back then had any idea about the society in other nations. Hell thats not even a thing of the past, it happens all the time today too.
Looking at this situation in hindsight you could safely say that there were enough signs that what the Allies were doing was a bad idea and would lead to another conflict. Some people even predicted that right after Versailles.
I have to agree with you on a point though: Any occupation of Germany after WWI would not have gone over well. The only reason it worked after WWII was the destruction both wars caused to Germany and Germany's spirit. One war alone would not have had the same impact. If the Allies had occupied Germany after WWI they would have had to fight guerilla wars against the entire political spectrum. Guerilla Wars that they had no way to sustain or win. Whatever ideology would have emerged from that would have been hostile to France/Britain/The West no matter what. Worst case? A Revanchist Communist Germany allying with the Soviets trying to enact vengence on the capitalists in the West and a broader Communist Revolution across Europe.
That would have been just as devastating to Europe if not worse than WWII.
@@ubrot7995 Part 1
"The Allies could absolutely have done better in hindsight. "
Agreed, though probably not in the ways you are thinking. Frankly I think unconditional surrender and some kind of 1945 style occupation and reformation was needed for all the Central Powers- and among other things it'd probably have avoided or at least lessened things like the post-war German Depression- but that is hindsight.
"Not having a Kaiser wasn't really that big of an issue. If you look into German Society at the time the biggest points of contention which indirectly and directly fueled the revanchism required for WWII were:
- the destruction of Germany's territorial integrity by cutting of big chunks of territory and disconnecting Eastern Prussia from Germany"
I would be far more sympathetic to this if the German Empire and its Prussian predecessor state hadn't spent literally 150 years (and with a particularly egregious prior half a century or so) doing this exact thing. To be sure most of it was "merely" the old Imperial Land-Grabbing and border adjustments of various degrees of wisdom or justice (in particular the Alsatian Annexation was a terrible idea), but which had escalated- especially during WWI- into plans to annex much of the continent and outright dismember or destroy nations like Belgium and Serbia. Oh yah, and don't even get me started on the Treaties of Bucharest and Brest-Litvosk.
Another important note especially regarding East Prussia is that the immediate post-WWI crisis of the Bolsheviks rampaging through Eastern Europe and trying to start a Second World War in 1918 was that Poland was one of the most important checks on this, but a host of Far-Right and Far-Left German unions and whatnot actively worked to sabotage shipments to Poland (essentially the Entente's Eastern Bulwark against the Bolsheviks), culminating in the decision to offload French marines at Danzig in order to make sure that the stuff keeping a totalitarian madman from conquering Europe actually got transported. There was ALSO the provable fact that Prussia had played a role in dismembering Poland's independence back in the 18th century (which had been protested by both Britain and the revolving door of revolutionary French governments, as well as a few others like Sweden, so it wasn't like this was a newfound quibble) and the Allies received increasing evidence in the latter stages of the war and after it that the German government had planned to genocide or at least ethnically cleanse the Poles outside of the rump "Kingdom of Poland" created out of the formerly Russian occupation zone of Poland, so there was a vested interest in giving Poland the means to defend itself. Which turned out to be quite warranted.
"- pushing the entire fault of the war on Germany alone"
Ok, this fucking meme needs to die and it needed to die YESTERCENTURY, because it simply isn't true. Indeed, we can trace it to post-WWI "oh, pity poor us" propaganda sponsored by the post war German governments (from Republican, to Pseudo-Republican like Papen, to the National Socialists like Hitler and to a lesser extent the Communists in the GDR).
But it's simply not true. The main problem with Versailles is that nobody enforced Versailles (at least nearly enough), but the secondary problem with Versailles is that nobody READS Versailles.
Because if you actually DO read Versailles, you will CLEARLY see that Article 231 of Versailles/ the "War Guilt" Clause specifies:
""The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany *AND HER ALLIES* for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies."
Emphasis mine.
Moreover, if you read the other Paris Peace Conference Treaties, this also is clear. For instance, from the Treaty of Saint Germain with the newly independent Republic of Austria:
"Article 177
The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Austria accepts the responsibility of Austria AND HER ALLIES for causing the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Austria-Hungary and her Allies."
And if you read the Treaty of Trianon with the newly-independent Republic of Hungary...
"Article 161
The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Hungary accepts the responsibility of Hungary AND HER ALLIES for causing the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Austria-Hungary and her allies."
So the Allies fostered responsibility for starting the war on BOTH Germany and Austria-Hungary rather than Germany alone. And frankly I think a sober analysis of the leadup to war shows this verdict is thoroughly justified. Which points me to one of the real issues with the cause of WWII: the inability of the German elite and a horrifying amount of the German public to admit they or their government had done anything wrong, and a culture of whitewashing and erasing the multiple atrocities the Kaiserreich had committed.
How many people have complained endlessly about the "Unreasonable" reparations payments Versailles demanded while completely ignoring A: The significantly higher per capita reparations demanded in the Treaty of Frankfurt in 1873 to France (ON TOP OF more than a couple years of Pan-German armies pillaging the countryside) and Brest-Litvosk, and B: The Hindenburg Programme and the strategic use of industrial slavery against Entente national citizens and war crimes in destroying occupied countryside (such as poisoning pretty much every aquifer in the Somme River Valley during the withdrawal after defeat in 1916)? Which unsurprisingly displaced millions of people.
"Though it has to be said that these things alone weren't enough to cause WWII, taking either of these away would have significantly reduced the risk of it."
I disagree. Fundamentally, the German side of the equation behind the causes of WWII stem from a mixture of rampant, authoritarian expansionism and runaway (often genocidal nationalism) permeating both public life and especially the "Deep State" of the Military and Bureaucratic Aristocracy, which the Weimar Government failed to eliminate even on the few attempts it tried. Funnei Charlie Chaplin knockoff gets a lot of the flak for this and he absolutely deserves it since he was particularly bad, but he was ultimately a product as well as a cause of this. The fact that immediately after WWI the people responsible for the most egregious atrocities of the war (at least on Germany's side) were either in comfortable exile (Kaiser Wilhelm II and some of the associated Court members), living publicly as civilians (including Erich Ludendorff, the Proto-Hitler of WWI and John the Baptist of pretty much all modern totalitarianism), or *STILL IN POWER* (in the case of Hindenburg, Groener, and so on) while the new government proceeded to excuse Imperial war crimes so long as they fit the (intentionally loopy and immoral) definition of Imperial law (Ie: So long as they are ordered by the Kaiser they cannot be illegal) was I think as good a demonstration of any as what was wrong in Germany. Ditto the fact that just years after the guns fell silent, and the Reichswehr under the direction of von Seeckt were ALREADY planning illregal rearmament in order to wage another illegal war of aggression.
It's remarkable that the Republic was as successful as it was- and indeed very narrowly survived- for so long under these kinds of circumstances, but it should not be a surprise that a dysfunctional, authoritarian, collectivist set of subcultures inside Germany- that had already experimented with outright totalitarianism in the second half of the war and were institutionally determined to avoid well-deserved blame- would ultimately elevate a man created in their image to absolute power, to become a new Ludendorff or Hindenburg or Kaiser. Hitler was just the successful one of the crop of also-rans in that mold like Papen, Hugenburg, Thalmann, Liebknecht, Luxemburg, and Seeckt.
"To the average German back then a lot of the territorial changes felt at best like pure spite and at worst like an actual attempt of destroying Germany (especially when taking into account all the unrest happening at the same time) and its very similar with the fault for WWI."
The German government of WWI had ACTUALLY, OFFICIALLY tried to destroy Belgium, Serbia, Montenegro, Luxembourg, and the Armenians and Polesian Poles. As official policy. Forgive me if I find it utterly perverse to weigh the precious feelings of "the average German" back then on par with the experiences of people who had entire towns destroyed, were systematically starved due to organized looting, and had their friends and family taken as hostages or deported to be used as slave labor in Germany.
Which goes back to the issue: this problem goes far deeper than Versailles, and I'd argue Versailles did not do enough to try and correct it since you needed it.
It was the entry of the USA that swung things decisively in favour of the allies. Perhaps the Entente would have won anyway, but at great cost and certainly not in 1918.
Receiving a torrent of abuse and calumny for suggesting a negotiated peace, you say? My, my oddly how familiar that seems...
Great video, any tips for new History CZcamsrs like you?
Thank you. Honestly, I’m really not the man to ask, I’m still working it out by trial and error myself. Only reason that I’ve grown relatively quickly is that the Imperial Federation video did incredibly well for whatever reason (to be honest I knew it was a popular topic no one had done a video on so did have a feeling it would do well).
Im really not in a place to judge, I just had a quick look at your channel and honestly it’s fine, your voice acting is better than mine lol, and the script sounds well written in that Persia vid.
I feel like I’m learning to edit more effectively each video just by trial and error, so can’t suggest anything except that.
Only other thing is maybe your thumbnails are a bit basic? The French kings one for example, I’d maybe put paintings of Louis IX, Louis XIV, and Louis XVI next to each other with a question mark over the top (something like that) to make it a bit more eye catching.
Other than that just make what you enjoy, which is what I’m doing, but think about whether it may be a popular topic.
Hope that’s some help but I’m really not qualified to be advising anybody lol.
@@OldBritannia Hey thanks man that is a good tip about the thumbnails I’m gonna change that Louis one for sure. Good luck!
One more thing, what do you use to make those maps?
@@StoicHistorian Just Photoshop. The tutorial I used initially is on a channel called Dr.Ludwig.
What was his plan for making peace with the Central powers, would to be favourable to both sides how much would german empire had to give up and even if peace was offered would german empire accept it.
That question is part of what makes the topic interesting for me. In reality the Germans probably wouldn't have accepted anything that didn't leave them dominant on the continent, but ultimately we don't know for sure.
@@OldBritannia Maybe if the kaiser intervened directly peace would have been achieved, the kaiser was highly infulanced by his Marshals who promised him high chances of victory and these marshals were now indirectly administrating the country and the conquered territories, the kaiser did not even favor the unrestricted submarine warfare but was highly infulanced by Admiral Henning von Holtzendorff who promised that he would strave the British population, peace would have been highly unlikely but if it did happen then it would been better.
@@athishnirup1815 I image if everyone was brought to the Peace Table the demands of each side would be something like this in a Normal World (Also this treaty doesn’t have anything to do with the Eastern lands won by the Central Powers from Russia. I’m assuming this treaty is signed before that)
Entente Power’s Demands
*Germany return Alsace-Lorraine to France & evacuate Belgian lands*
Austria give Bosnia to Serbia & grant autonomy to all it’s ethnic subjects
*Bulgaria return Macedonia & parts of Central Serbia back to Serbia & evacuate Greek lands*
The Ottomans give up Mesopotamia, Palestine & their Yemen territory
Central Power’s Counter Demands
Germany retain a presence in Eastern Belgium for 50 years
Having it’s Colonial Empire returned except for the Marshall Islands in the Pacific & their Chinese territory
Given one French Colony in Africa
*Austria giving Italy some of the Trentino Region & Trieste with the assurance of retaining Dalmatia & keeping Montenegro under occupation for 20 years as it will also grant autonomy of it’s subjects*
Bulgaria retaining Macedonia but ceding back the strip of North Serbia
Keeping Southern Dobruja
Leaving Greek Soil with no concessions
*Ottomans cede Yemen but request Mesopotamia be given back from the British in exchange for giving the Arabs either greater freedoms or a State carved out from the Yemen territory*
Unknown if this would even be accepted by either side, but if everyone had calmed down, maybe this lists here has a tiny chance
Trivial in the context of an extraordinarily terrible war, but: the cartoon left at 1:11 stringly resembles a pooular meme.
What is ur Twitter
Old_Britannia (I think that’s the account name you’d search? idk I’m still working out how to use the platform, never had it before this channel)
0:00 1922 Auldous Huxley’s _Brave New World_
0:38 Russian Revolution
0:56 Lansdowe’s Experience in British Politics 🇬🇧 1:21 Classic British Whig politician.
1:46 Lansdowe’s War Aims
2:16 He was publicly denounced.
2:58 Preservation of Aristocracy
3:24 Germany 🇩🇪 own Parliament had passed a Peace Resolution but it’s Head of State ignored it.
3:42 “The Wars of people will be more terrible than the Wars of kings.”
3:58 Only a total victory would bring an end to the conflict.
Interesting
He is one of the best what ifs of history like what if Britain was actually competent. What if Britain actually made moves to actually benefit it's empire. He literally made a very good argument for how Britain could get out of the war without making obligations to Europe. Because Europe is the reason Britain got and lost it's empire. And Britain made the mistake of thinking that beating Germany and enforcing a brutal peace on it which literally caused Britain to lose it's empire the rise of communism and the US to dominate world affairs.
Here at 7.1k views and 6k subs
Well, hurrah! We've survived The Great War: 1914-1917!
it's somewhat hopeful to remember men that when the norm was clamoring for war they wanted peace.
your vids are amazing
Thank you, glad you’re enjoying them.
German military took over the government. The Kaiser was not in the loop by 1917. The German generals had to save their ass and power so withdrawing from all French territory was not to their liking. In many ways the governing of Germany in WW I was similar to WW II, total war, total war economy.
Why Kaiser was so passive?
Every country at this time had a total war economy...
ww1 was just different. Before kings were willing to accept and exchange demand to avoid coups and bloodshed. After it only total victory was accepted.
They should have made peace
It’s a pity Churchill didn’t act on he’s quote and encourage the cabinet to stay out of the coming conflict
On the contrary he actively encouraged our participation
The Great War did not end with a complete Entente victory - the Armistice (truce) ended the fighting before the Entente powers invaded German lands. That's why the Germans believed they had not actually lost the war. Every Entente general disagreed with the Armistice and all were unanimous in foretelling the resumption of hostilities within 20 years. WW2 did end with a complete victory over the Axis powers and every German knew they had lost the war - a big difference between the ending of the two wars.
The terms of the armistice were an unconditional surrender in all but name, which the Germans accepted because their army was disintegrating. I stand by calling it a complete victory.
The German publics capacity for self delusion has no impact on whether the war was a complete victory or not.
About the sanest man at the time if only it had been possible to listen to him. Pursuing the war only obliged the allies to force terms on Germany which are now accepted as a major cause in the rise of fascism and all that brought.
God save the king
Commenting 4 algorithm
Replying 4 algorithm
@@simplyafloatingeyeball.8923 Butting into the conversation 4 algorithm
I commend anyone who in history tried to bring an end to the great war. This guy deserves to be rectified imo. 1917 showed that nothing was sacred anymore. The human cost of fighting this God forsaken conflict was too high for every nation that did. May God forgive our forefathers for allowing that travesty to occur.
The Austrians were starving and desperate for peace in the winter of 17-18. They told the Germans (Ludendorff and Hindenburg) they would not survive another year. The German civilian population was not much better off. But Ludendorff and Hindenburg were no different to George and Clemenceau.
@@billyjoel6352 - You have no idea what you’re talking about. The Kaiser was completely powerless by this time and had been mostly powerless since the 1908 Daily Telegraph affair. His own elite regarded him as a fool.
bruh
I full heartedly agree with Lansdowne. Total war is a product of mass democracy. God is so infinitely just that only those who are capable of waging wars have the right in deciding political affairs. It used to be only the aristocrats who were capable of waging wars, therefore the aristocrats were the primary casualty of war. Mass democracy brings every citizen the right to decide national affairs, and with it, the obligation to bleed like yesterday's aristocrats in wars. The more power you have, the more obligation you have - there is no way for you to have one and not the other. An elitist polity wages elitist wars. A universal polity wages universal wars. If everyone gets to decide political affairs, then everyone must bleed in times of war.
Thus, I must disagree with you on one point, that the total war machine namely the western world, was not the civilization, it was advanced barbarity. Only the west at the time had the most universal suffrage and the ability of total mobilization. And as a result, only the west was able to implement industrial slaughter and racial annihilation. The days of limited warfare and diversity of states in feudal Europe and Zhou Dynasty were forever gone, during the advancement of human technology, ideologies, and magnification of sinfulness.
Democracy leans towards totalitarianism. Limited democracy brings limited wars. Total democracy brings total war.
Great video. While I’m glad the Entente was victorious in WW1, the collapse of the German Imperial system is one of the great tragedies of the 20th century. Kaiser Wilhelm was a tragic figure who has been unfairly compared to Hitler by amateur historians and lazy “intellectuals.” Was he a war monger and a fool? Yes. Was he rash, arrogant, and impulsive? Yes. Was he a genocidal maniac bent of World domination and destroying Europe? Absolutely not. The best case scenario would have been to have Wilhelm abdicate in favor of his brother Henry or his son Wilhelm. The stability of the monarchy and the aristocratic order in Germany would have prevented the rise of Nazism and the bloodshed of the European theater of World War II. Germany should bring back its monarchy to enrich its cultural identity again.
After what Germany had seen and done in past 100 years, monarchy or cultural identity aren't ever coming back.
@@reichtangleanschluss509 I understand the sentiment but Germans have to be getting sick of cultural nihilism and pseudo-communist politics at this point. If Western nations stop fighting for their culture, China and the rest of the world will gladly take its place.
@@dylanbuffenbarger8557 European countries (especially those that weren't communist) have pretty much abaddon their own cultures for globalism and multiculturalism.
What good has come from the Entente being victorious? Nothing! Europe would be in better shape with German Victory. No WW2 (Atleast not in Europe 99%), no Iron Curtain because the USSR would have been crushed in the 20s. Nothing good has come to the World from British and French idiotic border painting after WW1.
@@reichtangleanschluss509 They were forced too. That was America's entire plan, evil empire that it is.
The evils of the war is a matter of perspective. Me and mine come from Bangladesh and my grandfather always thought that wwi and ii were sent from god to free the rest of the world from European tyranny. I for my part simply regard the wars as just another example of human evil like other evil and undoubtedly more evil will come in centuries to come.
Arrogance and tragedy.
The one point to note IMHO is that Versailles was seen as dictat by Germany, hence Hitlers repudiation of it in 1935. Lansdowne was broadly correct and the real paradox can be seen in Ukraine today. Had Versailles not included an abrogation of the treaty of Brest Litovsk (1917) it would not have allowed the nascent USSR to allow Stalin to undermine the Ukrainian elections of 1922 thus bringing it into the USSR.
Not forgetting that after Verdun in 1917 the French army were into meltdown so British Empire forces were left to hold the Western Front alone. Post WW1 best to dismantle Germany, reduced to a rump state - as happened to unlucky Hungary - with Bavaria returned to independence for instance and the Baltic coast a giant British naval base with Hanover and Hesse once more British allies, as had been the case with all Georgian monarchs pre-Victoria
That.... sounds expensive 😂
The British didn't want the French becoming too powerful after the war and leaving Germany a shattered mess besides a devastated but still victorious France seemed like a bad idea. Additionally they didn't want communism spreading and an uneven more unstable and disunified Germany would have increased the risk of that.
Post WW1 best to dismantle France.
I think you misunderstand the impact of the french mutinies of 1917, I've seen it in several british takes on WW1 that at some point the british and ANZAC were the sole rempart against germans in 1917, but the french amry never left the frontlines. Altough some of the mutinies were against the continuation of the war (mostly revolutionary), most of the mutinies asked for better living conditions, more leaves and no more "attaque à outrance", blindless attacks that led to many casualties for little to no gain. Contrary to the british, the French had been one the offensive since the beggining of the war, while the british hadn't organised any major attack after Loos (1914) until the Somme, which at first was supposed to be a mostly french attack. So yes, the soldiers were fed up with attacking for nothing, they refused attacking orders but the soliders stayed in their trenches and were still willing to defend them, leaving the front was never in question. The mutinies ended when Pétain organised better leaves and better life for the soldiers (and contrary to the common belief, very few soldiers, most revolutionnaries, were shot). The french hold 80% of the frontlines, including the Balkans front, if a complete meltdown of the french army had happened, the British army couldn't have managed it alone.
If you want to learn more about WW1 and history in general, I would advise you not to rely on english speaking authors alone and find translations of foreign works that can help give a bit more depths about the events. SOme people are surprised to learn that the French were at the Somme, in nearly equal numbers to the british.
As a German this would feel quite bad, and before I would let myself being humiliated like that, I would try my luck with communism and join the soviet union, even though I am anti communist
Good that britain did not make peace.
Why?
Do think the damage done at every level was worth it
I certainly do not
And all for Belgium
The World suffered a lot from the Entente victory. The stupid borders drawn by France and Britain brought nothing good to the World after WW1. The wrong side won to be honest.
@@yolomanolo2601 I don't Germany would have done better.
@@seanmoran2743 Not all for Belgium, it was to maintain the balance of power in Europe. Germany smashing France and annexing part of the low countries along with its economy starting to overtake Britain's would have made it far too powerful and threatened British security. Germany would have had the capacity after that to build a more powerful fleet than Britain along with control of the coasts nearest to Britain. If France and Russia won they would have dominated Europe and the near east and were historically Britain's main rivals and the British would have been sidelined.