Why Germany Had to Start the War
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 04. 2024
- In 1914, Germany gave Austria-Hungary the so-called 'blank cheque' that allowed it to declare war on Serbia and thus plunge Europe into the First World War.
This video aims to be a short analysis of why Germany and Austria felt desperate enough to undertake this radical course of action in 1914, whilst knowing there was a good chance of it leading to war.
Patreon: / oldbritannia
#History, #WWI, #German Empire
I hope you enjoy this short video, looking at the strategic situation before WWI. I know it suffers a bit from focusing narrowly on a single potential cause of the First World War, but I hope that stops it getting lost in the weeds - i.e. Wilhelm and Franz Ferdinand's personal relationship being a reason Germany backed Austria in 1914, is undoubtedly an important factor, but would end confusing this video. Depending on what you think of it, we could potentially look at a few of the other theorised 'causes' in the future, i.e. a video on the Fischer thesis and so forth.
Thank you all for watching, and thanks to Patron's for selecting the topic and reviewing it.
I would love more videos on the topic, keep up the great work!
These videos are amazing! Could you consider making series on the real great game as well?
Old brittania sometime you show italy having the island of rhodes pre world war one, they were only granted these turkish islands after World one 1
I think it's a helpful look into how your other theses on pre-WW1 Europe fit together.
What exactly makes a European state successful, what allows it to survive? For Old Britania, it is these three things:
1. Strategically sound diplomacy
2. Prudent domestic policy, and
3. Deference to tradition, people, and good conscience.
The case of 1914 seems to be a moment where these three principles of good statecraft were inoperable.
"I hope you enjoy this short video" Not gona watch it because of the blatantly false titule. Austria-Hungary is not Germany.
Poor Germany - too big for Europe, too small for the world...
Russia:
Poor virtually friendless Britain
It believed it was a continental power and then found out it wasn’t which broke it irreversibly
That’s a quote from Henry Kissinger 😊
@@seanmoran2743 rent. free. sean
@@CalinGilea
BABE…. WAKE UP
you don’t have a babe be honest
@@flop-tk1se 😢
@@flop-tk1se Don't talk to my boyfriend like that
@@thesupercactus6401 He said I was the only one!
Babe keep the kids quite. I'm trying to watch Old Britannia on my phone.
As a German who studied history, I'd like to add two things I've learned.
1.) Germany supported Austria in the July Crisis also out of a fear of alienating/losing them otherwise, leaving them truly alone.
2.) There was also the fear about the recent rise of the workers party. I think Bethmann-Hollweg estimated that three things would need to come together for a chance to win the war: Austrian participation, the support of the workers at home (which seemed likely if the war was against Russia) and Britain's neutrality (which initially also seemed achievable, until the realities of the Schlieffen plan settled in).
Yeah wasn’t Belgium created as way to justify war?
And you would not like to contest that Germany started the war? It didnt.
Point #1 has come up a bunch in the books I've read. It was feared that if Austria was left to flounder with no legal recourse for the assassination then it was far more likely to break with Germany in turn and join Italy in moving closer to the Entente.
@@loverofyurigagarin1149 - lol no.
Also Habsburg FM Berchtold felt he'd been humiliated by failing to contain Serb expansion in the 1912-13 Balkan wars and wanted to display toughness in 1914.
There's always a personal element.
The rise of Russian economy, the success of Stolypin's reforms and the great rearnament program of Russian armies in the prelude to WW1 is something that is rarely mentioned in popular discussion about the cause of WW1, even before watching this video i already know for quite some time now that German Military Circle at that time thought that the Russian army would be strategically invicible for them if their great rearnament program goes uninterupted until 1917, Schliefen plan itself being deviced to knock France out of the war as quick as possible like 1870 so Germany can focused on the prospect of any long war with Russia
Good point but Russia was still way behind other European or global (USA) economies in terms of industrialization, it would not really move forward until the Stalin period in fact. On the other hand Germany had surpassed Britain as main global industrial producer, much as Chinas has now surpassed the USA.
@@LuisAldamiz The tsarist was the fastest growing economy on the planet. It's somewhat likely that Russia would be stronger without the years of civilnwar
@@LuisAldamizYes, Russia was indeed behind USA and Western Europe in terms of industrialisation. However, they were actively closing the gap, having the fastest growing economy amongst the European Great Powers immediately prior to WW1 (the lower base ofc being a factor). You can read about it here: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrialization_in_the_Russian_Empire. And about your comment on Stalin, obviously Russia couldn’t really develop an industry during and immediately after its Civil War, which lead to unspeakable destruction across the country.
@@comradekapibarchik7997 - Interesting data. Taken on its own it would suggest that Russia was on the road to become a superpower, revolution or no revolution. I'm not so sure but maybe you're right.
I concur that the pre-Stalin period was not very conductive to massive development, rather "survival" was sought after with Lenin's NEP. But in any case it was under Stalin and the full socialism when Russia or rather the overall USSR fully industrialized, something still going on in the days of Khrushev (when the USSR was the first Earthling country in space) but not so much under Brezhnev, when it stagnated, probably because the system was adapted to "authoritarian" Fordist Capitalism rather than to "diffuse" Toyotist Capitalism (and Brezhnev was radically agains the necessary reforms). I digress anyhow.
@@LuisAldamiz It's important to remember that it's all about perception. The German military were probably wrong that the Russian army would be too strong to overcome by 1917 without a war and that Russian industrialisation was a lot further behind western Europe than they thought, but it's the fear of it happening that caused the war.
If I understand you correctly, you’re arguing that Austria and Germany more or less had to go to war because: for Germany, the Schlieffen plan was going to be rendered obsolete by the reformed Russian army and, for Austria, the improvement in the quality of the Serbian army/combined Balkan-Russia bloc threatened them existentially. War in 1914 thus being the last chance to save their current position let alone gain a strategic advantage over the Entente.
Seeing how Austria fared against Serbia at the start of the war, that concern proved true. Seeing how Russia performed, overestimated by the Germans.
I’m interested in you exploring France’s role.
France was in revenge mode vs Germany since the Franco-Prussian war. Being not anymore a first tier European or global power it had become increasingly dependent on British condescendence towards their last colonialist wave and thus the Ententè happened, because Britain was by tradicional policy bound to fight against any strong power in mainland Europe (in the past it had been Spain, later France but since German unification and rapid industrial growth it was Germany).
I have commented this already independently under the video, but it fits here as well:
One should also not ignore an incredibly important fact when accounting for Germany's position on a long war: The Haber-Bosch process was only technically realized in 1913 for the first time and only through a gigantic industrial and monetary effort implemented at scale at the very end of 1914. Without this process, there was essentially no way to produce large amounts of nitre, which was necessary for just about any explosive. Nitre had to be imported from overseas in large quantities and could easily be cut off by a combined French-British naval blockade (as happened in real life).
Had the war started at any point before 1914, the central powers would have run out of ammunition within 6-10 months. In other words, all central powers planning needed to achieve victory within that time frame or face defeat. This is the reason why a Russia first plan was not even considered after 1912; defeating Russia would have taken way too long and even if achieved would still have meant no ammunition being left to defeat the French. Defeating France quickly at the start of the war meanwhile would have made a British blockade almost infeasible, considering it now would have had to block French ports as well.
Without fore knowledge of the successful scale implementation of the Haber-Bosch process, there was absolutely no alternative to the Schlieffenplan in essence, only in concrete implementation. If the Schlieffenplan became unviable, all roads would have led to defeat.
@@MajinOthinusThese small elements of history are rarely recognized or discussed.
I would argue that the way austria-hungary fared against serbia is somewhat comparable as how the french and british fared against the germans at the start of WW2: Serbia had more experience in recent military conflict due to the balkan wars. The last hostile actions austria-hungary had been in were skirmishes during the initial occupation of Bosnia.*
So recent fighting experience was (and is) superior to size of army.
The germans in WW2 had experience due to the attack on poland. (and before that even at the annexation of austria, the german army looked very carefully at what did not work in getting their military there and improoved on that. Same with the attack on poland)
And thus the british and french (yes the french commanding generals bahaviour was a debacle in itself too) lacked the experience and readjustement the germans already had gone through.
* which they didn't just decide on doing, but was an outcome of the congress of Berlin and so a diplomatic agreed on thing to not start a war with russia or serbia. And the actual annexation later was a diplomatic quickdraw due to something the russian foreign minister said, not expecting the austrians to act so quickly on it. He became an austrophob for the rest of his life due to that.
That’s pretty much how German and Austrian leadership saw things, yeah.
This channel is way too underrated.
Indeed
One of CZcams's best-kept secrets
Agreed
I wish there were content like this for other countries
The level of analysis here is terrible, despite how well researched and intelligent-*sounding* it is. There was never any need for Germany to agree to defend Austria-Hungary at all. They were just being petty and nationalistic and insecure. Germany simply had to say NO and WW1 would have literally never happened and Austria-Hungary would have fallen apart is did anyways and millions of people would have lived, and Germany might even have improved its relations with England/France/Russia as a result.
WW1 is so interesting. It’s insane how savage it was. The first insanely huge industrialized war. New technology = new weapons
1914, the beginning of the end of Europe.
@@smftrsddvjiou6443 1945, 8th of May*
@@smftrsddvjiou6443yeah, it’s clear this war sent the continent on an even darker path. The fact this all happened again a few decades later - despite how destructive the first war was - shows you how much of an awful mistake it was with long lasting consequences. They called it “the war to end all wars” - except it achieved the exact opposite.
@@smftrsddvjiou6443 unfortunately you are right :(
And a totally useless war. Except for the ones that funded both sides.
I suggest a video on the morocco crisis and perhaps the pov of the maratha confederation
Well, possibly. But the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort not to have a war.
"It was BOLLOCKS"
"And i thought it was because someone shot an ostrich..."
Fun fact: the feather on Franz Ferdinands hat was an ostrich feather!
under rule of international bankers globally. for over 100 years. germany solved that problem in 1933 and the globalists didnt like that.
I've always loved history. The battle of Hastings, Henry 8th and his six knives
@nirfz It was shot by an archer, because he was hungry.
Let me grab my popcorn, Old Britannia has just posted.
🍿
I like your willingness to admit your changes in opinion when it comes to interpreting your historical sources. Most of the time history channels will usually state something plainly without going in the nuances of interpreting correspondence and the opinions of the people that defined foreign policy.
I would like to see a longer economic history and situation for other countries, for example Italy. In the same way as you did for Britain and the USA
Finally a new video by the legendary Old Britannia!!!✨️✨️✨️
You mean another old video by New Brittania?
@@YarPirates-vy7iv His WW1 videos are the best, plus this isn’t an old video. It’s a different take on a historical subject that he already talked about once
@@generaltom6850 I love his videos. I'm just messing with the words, word play as it were, for fun.
I rarely comment under videos, but I must state that I am positively surprised by this video essay. You are in quite a short time clearly summarizing key points relevant to the discussion of the ignition of WWI. You are discussing the need of much needed nuance in this field of study and you are also thinking in metaterms, that are very - and I mean very - important for this kind of study (e.g.: "it is important not what we think, but what the German high command was thinking"). Your well structured arguments supported by sources are great. This video brings ibteresting and needed viewpoint into WWI discussion and I think it achieves even some degree of academic-grade discussion. Keep up the great work!
Great as always, keep it up!
Yaaaaaas OldBritannia uploaded!!!!
Great work, you nailed the shorter format.
Awesome work as always!
Excellent as always
This video is a great insight into the underlying and systemic causes of WW1 and I felt like it gave a very good explanation of the situation the Germans and Austrians felt they were in! Good job!
I hate how people are so easily persuaded by terrible analysis just cuz it sounds smart. There's this huge effort nowadays to absolve Germany of their 100% fault in causing WW1 and it's fucking insane. So many logical leaps here are not covered, like WHY Germany had to support Austria-Hungary in their dumbshit imperialist agenda. All they had to do was say, "We dont support you in this" and WW1 would have literally have never happened. It genuinely would have been that simple.
You're the only CZcamsr whose content I view immediately after being notified. Your history videos are hands-down better than anything I've seen on TV. I applaud you!
A small nitpick: You should probably use the en-dash "-" and not a hyphen "-" in things like "Anglo-Russian Convention". Traditionally, there is a subtle difference in meaning, the former meaning "a convention of England and Russia" and the latter "the convention of 'Anglo-Russia'".
Great video as per usual, very infromative, Thank you you for expanding upon this topic :)
Great video. 👍 Keep up the great work. Peace ✌🏻
Great video, I think you should do the other possible causes
OLD BRITANNIA POST A VIDEO DROP EVERYTHING!
As always amazing
One should also not ignore an incredibly important fact when accounting for Germany's position on a long war: The Haber-Bosch process was only technically realized in 1913 for the first time and only through a gigantic industrial and monetary effort implemented at scale in 1914. Without this process, there was essentially no way to produce large amounts of nitre, which was necessary for just about any explosive. Nitre had to be imported from overseas in large quantities and could easily be cut off by a combined French-British naval blockade (as happened in real life).
Had the war started at any point before 1914, the central powers would have run out of ammunition within 6-10 months. In other words, all central powers planning needed to achieve victory within that time frame or face defeat. This is the reason why a Russia first plan was not even considered after 1912; defeating Russia would have taken way too long and even if achieved would still have meant no ammunition being left to defeat the French. Defeating France quickly at the start of the war meanwhile would have made a British blockade almost infeasible, considering it now would have had to block French ports as well.
Another Old Britannia Banger 🔥🔥🔥
Germany did not start WW1. It was started by Austria. In fact, Wilhelm tried to stop the war once he realized that Austria was actually going to war with Serbia.
WW1 would have never happened if Germany didn't agree to ally with Austria-Hungary, ffs. How can you people suggest otherwise? Any other war would never been a 'world war' at all. Germany was the one who made plans to invade France and fight Russia and everything. They absolutely made their decision to start a giant war. It's unbelievable how many people try and argue otherwise.
They still committed to war in the end, just because Austria begun the first domino doesn't mean Germany didn't choose to go to war - essentially they were happy to start in 1914, because had they not been, they wouldn't have joined Austria and invaded Belgium to assault France. Also German actions on the east were defensive at first, but they were also hyper aggressive there as the war went on.
@@ACR909all of those things are different than "starting" the war.
And France and Russia started the war.
@@DerAptrgangr Austria started the first military action so idk what you're talking about. It was the German willingness to back Austrias was against Serbia (and therefore Russia) that begun the war.
@@ACR909 - By your own logic is was Russias willingness to back Serbia that begun the war. Austria had a valid reason to attack Serbia. Russia caused the war between Germany and Russia while France and the UK caused a world war by attacking Germany.
Another fascinating video!
I love your channel man its the ultimate History nerd channel
Always a good day when OB uploads
Two reasons why youre an amazing CZcams Historian; 1. Your talent for explaining diplomatic History is matched by very few on this channel whike also using great visuals in your maps and soloets of whomever the subject is on. 2. They have rewatchability as you might miss something on the first, even second watch
Your videos exploring the historical geopolitical reality in Europe are so well done. Thank you.
another amazing video!
I think this also gives a good understanding of just how unwilling old empires could be at as he said in the video, 'swallow their pride' and concede/backdown. Sometimes you just can't do anything about the situation you find yourself in and you have to accept that fact before desperation, ignorance or something similar leads to the destruction of what you are trying to protect. it's an oversimplification but sort of inevitable in a world so obsessed with showing strength and the international image of the nation.
WW1 literally could have been avoided if Germany said "No". Germany caused WW1 by saying "Yes". They knew all the consequences and only said "Yes" because they thought they could win.
If I might offer a topic suggestion, there's an area of this period which has vexed me for some time now - what was Vienna's plan, long-term? Previously, we [read: you] have already discussed the diplomatic catch-22 that Austria-Hungary found herself (herselves?) in, caught between the overlapping matrices of Russian territorial ambitions, Ottoman weakness, friendliness between the Austrian and Russian political systems, and the complex influences from Whitehall and Wilhelmstraße. Tracking the diplomatic movements made by Vienna in this period often feels as though Austria is caught playing two tennis matches at once, from opposite directions - darting back and forth to narrowly block a shot, just to buy enough time to lurch back and block another one coming from behind - with her getting more and more flustered as time goes on. But I've never gotten a comprehensive answer as to what her plan was in the long-term, how Austria-Hungary planned to survive and reorient herself. Did they want to build a federation, mollify their ethnic tensions? Did they want to reposition themselves at the centre of European diplomacy again? Force the Russians and Turks from the Balkans to close up the gaping hole in her armour? Much has been said of the almost romcom shenanigans Austria pulled to stay afloat, but how did they pan to pull themselves up from the water?
Videos are looking sharper each time!
I’ve always absolutely loved the aesthetic of the maps in these videos
Is it just me, or is something different?
In all seriousness, love the new style!
Its less professional and stoic than his other videos. Plus the vocabulary is more informal.
Damn man that is some next level Thucydean nightmare. Imagine being forced into a war you think you can't win in a last ditch bid to avoid a war you know you won't win. I wonder what the diplomatic theatre of Europe would have looked like if no great war had occurred and the strategic realities of Europe were shaken up by the incredible economic eclipsing of Europe by the United States of America
In many ways this situation was caused almost entirely by Wilhelm II abandoning the bismarkian policy of keeping France and Russia divided
That eclipse wouldnt have taken place like it had in reality. The circumstances for America eclipsing Europe economically were a combination of Europe being near annihalated by two world wars and America taking advanatage of the situation to profit and gain influence. Without those two wars, either America growing larger would have been delayed by decades if not half a centruy or wouldnt have happened at all.
@@Wanderer628 I wouldn't be that pessimistic. WWI accelerated America's rise, but it didn't create it. By the 1900s America had already surpassed the economy of the British Empire and was beginning to out-compete Britain in countries which were traditionally under the British sphere of influence (as in South America) or most alarmingly, even in countries that were a part of the British Empire like Canada. Even in Britain itself, American goods were outcompeting British goods, and there were calls to raise protectionist tariffs.
The most significant change from the lack of any WWI, is that the pound sterling would probably still be the world reserve currency. But all the factors which made the US so competitive - vast natural resources, huge free, well-educated population, strong commercial law, availability of capital (including from British and European investors!), are all things which made the USA economically robust and powerful. Even without the bankruptcy of the European states, the USA was getting STRONG
In 1890 Britain had an urban population of 11.2M people. USA 9.6M, Germany 5.6M, France 4.5M and Russia 4.3M
In 1900 USA had an urban population of 14.2M people, Britain 13.5M, Germany 8.7M, Russia 6.6M, France 5.2M and Japan 3.8M.
In 1910 USA had an urban population of 20.3M people, Britain 15.3M, Germany 12.9M, Russia 10.2M, Japan 5.8M and France 5.2M.
The same trend is true, whether you look at population size, GDP growth, per capita levels of industrialistion iron/steel output e.t.c. (source: the rise and fall of the great powers, p.256). In 1890 the USA was manufacturing 36% of the world's steel, by 1910 it was manufacturing 47%.
If the great war hadn't started - the USA would have likely continued growing to the point where its industrial output exceeded all of the European powers combined. That would surely forecast a comfortable future, even without their competition immolating itself in the fires of war.
@@brickingle3984this is a misconception an alliance with russia and Austria at Same was Impossible
@brickingle3984 Bismarck created an empire only he could have kept alive. Without him, germans had to win a major war in order to secure their place in europa. They couldn't and now we all have to speak this language
Great video! Like always ❤keep it up :)
Another great video!
I love this channel! However, if you read these comments: please check out Terence Zuber’s work on the Schlieffen Plan. He believes it never existed in the way it is now conceived. I’m not so sure that it never existed, but I certainly think it is a more complex issue than “as everyone knows, 7/8 of germany’s army was supposed to go west.”
Thank you. I know, I know, I do actually cite zuber at the end if you check. His work is profound, but come on, he’s hardly uncontroversial. I probably should have mentioned it because it does impact how pre-war Germany is studied, but it’s such a rabbit hole that I don’t know if I could include it in this without getting side tracked.
there was definitely, despite Zuber's claim, something like the Schlieffen Plain.
@@OldBritannia Having read and re-read Zuber's book, I'll agree that his thesis is controversial, but I do love the fact that, despite this, his contribution to the military history of WW1 is "has anybody actually bothered to study the German war plans and war games themselves, rather than just rely heavily on Gerhard Ritter's book?".
In any case, this video - as well as your other videos with Salisbury in it - is a pleasure to watch.
@@OldBritanniaHave you ever heard of Donoso Cortes? From what I understand he predicted the coming of ww1 all the way back in 1849. Take care and God bless
The sad reality is that history is about to repeat itself.
Yeah. And the Russians are going to dog walk the West of they happened.
It's not an exact repeat; it's a farcical echo.
@@TheSkyGuy77
Mostly because one side, Russia, is winning so hard it's not even a fight and more like pest control for them.
Only this time it won't even be a fight because one side, NATO, doesn't have the men or material and have spent it all in the proxy portion of the fight.
@@VunderGuy
Not even close.
Fantastic video.
Finally some real historical content followed by something of an erudite discussion. Thank you very much. I've sub'd of course.
Very good explanatory video. Understanding history isn't just about knowing the causal sequence of events; you have to understand the perspectives of the people - and especially the decision makers - of the time in question.
I think you'll find misunderstanding history is rather more popular. Academically speaking we would all pursue just perspectives if given half a chance, but politically speaking the half must be denied.
Academically speaking the academics only need half the chance to write good history, but they often fail, and bad history is often better received. History inevitably generates thought, and thought control works best when no new thoughts are being generated, so history is the hot potatoe. For example, an academic wrote Franz Ferdinands fateful trip to Sarajevo.
That takes the heat off the decision to send him there. Now put the heat on - Franz Ferdinands fatal trip to Sarajevo.
Rather than accept any responsibility for the mistake, the government decided on another mistake, war. And two wrongs, even by the same person, dont make a right. Serbia was blamed entirely...
Indeed a wrong turn may be fateful but Ferdinand did not turn the car, so how does that word apply to him?
Historian Medlicott wrote of Neville Chamberlain, he would have done better to stay at home. Those words apply to Ferdinand, but they pop up concerning the next war as meant part of the tragedy. The sequence of events is nothing in those terms, because 1914 becomes 1938. And you will find people moving 1938 to recent times, with Ukraine starring as Czechoslovakia. You wrote causal but most people choose casual, the casual sequence of events, the fateful sequence of events, all thought controlled. Chamberlain was better than that, and anything is better than that. History could teach us all to be better, but more than half a chance would be required, and few people give others that much.
I'm rather torn on these short videos of yours - on the one hand it means we get more content, but on the other it means I can't sit back with a couple beers and enjoy an hour long analysis on diplomatic history. But I can hardly complain, can I?
Hey, I recently discovered your channel and I would love to just applaud you on the fine work you are doing. Your videos are so informative but yet concise! I am now binge-watching my way through your channel. Please consider one day doing a video on the politics of the, 1798 Rebellion, 1916 Rising, Irish war of Independence, or the new Irish free State/Republic. There is a lot to talk about if you were ever stuck for an idea!
Best way to wake up, Old Britannia providing with the greatest of content.
Fascinating. Although, given the pessimism in both Berlin and Vienna, had the assassination not taken place eg it had failed rather than Princip getting very lucky, would there have still been a war? I accept this is speculative but those feelings of the world closing in and that there wasn't much time would still have been present.
Maybe not then but later, Austria and Serbia seemed on a collision course and had swerved in 1908 but the festering remained
You should read Sean McMeekin "The Russian Origins of the First World War". Its a pretty interesting book with archival information in regards to Franco-Russian (but, as the title says, mostly russian) records about the period between the July Crisis and the outbreak of hostilities
A book which was ripped to shreds by more or less the entire historical community for gross distortion and omission of facts to push a certain narrative. It's history-flavored propaganda, nothing more.
Then again, once you remember that Sean McMeekin is a professor at a Turkish university with a Turkish wife, it all makes sense: I wouldn't risk my job or my marriage for the truth, either.
@@bomberharris1943 What's the source for that? I haven't seen any historians completely discretizing Sean McMeekin work as inherently flawed
Also, ad hominem attack isnt really a noteworthy point
Only Russia could turn the Austrian-Serb dispute into a world war. A shame that the Czar listened to Sazonov instead of Witte...
@@gumdeoto blame a single man or a nation in starting WW1 is as foolish as thinking that only murderer should be persecuted and accomplices are free of guilt
I love the scholarly terms, the learned speech and cadence, and use of the word "squat."
Sound thinking and reasoning, I must say. Not another armchair historian on CZcams. I also liked a lot that you included your sources at the end. This is how history works as a science.
imagine its an irish person killing the british prince,
and our history blames the french for starting the war because they attacked the english strait to by pass the ocean
"and our history blames the french for giving britain the green light to invade ireland and kill a quarter of its population in the occupation, while itself fighting for far bigger war aims."
Its far worse that. Imagine if an Irish Person killed the British Prince, then France takes the blame for war after Germany sent troops to west waving “we are marching on Paris” flags.
6:15
A country that faces a major security threat from a hostile alliance possibly gaining a new member and thus attacking that prospective member
That sounds familiar
The difference tho is that Russia scales higher than either Ukraine or NATO and that both the Central and Allied Powers had material to spare, unlike the Ukraine or NATO.
@@VunderGuy what are you talking about
@@knockouta3811
I'm saying it's not going to be a WW1 style war because that would imply Russia and NATO scale in power in the same way Germany and the Allies did. They don't. Russia scales far higher if for no other reason NATO has fallen off greatly and still thinks they're going to be fighting the last major war.
@@VunderGuy russia has half the gdp of germany alone and has been incapable of making any significant progress in a war against ukraine, a struggling and corrupt eastern european nation. one reason for the war is that russia needs ukraine to maintain its international status, this was a point of consideration for germany during ww1 as well. no ukraine = no great power russia. the only real power russia has anymore is in its nuclear arsenal and grain export, which are considerable but just dont equate to the technology and economy of NATO.
@@knockouta3811
Russia is winning this war despite all of Europe and America propping up the Ukrainian armed forces, which were literally already more powerful than everything in NATO at the start of the conflict aside from America and were made that way because of, guess what, considerable western backing. Russia will end this conflict on their own terms with no negotiated settlement and will leave the West out in the cold. If a non-nuclear war were ever to break out, the Russians will turn anyone sent against them into borscht because despite your saber rattling the West lacks military industrial capacity in the same way it had an overabundance of it during WW1 and WW2. The Russians are likewise not in the same situation as the Germans were in either war and the Germans nowadays are a joke due to decades of management from both at home in Germany and abroad. The Germans are half of what Europe could hope to send in a conventional war against Russia and the French are not much better and aren't relevant because of their conventional arsenal. There is no individual country that can match Russia's output of material and rounds on target in Europe and even collectively and with American support, they lag behind. War is logistics and the logistics vastly favor Russia in this scenario. Combined arms is a relic of a bygone age and doesn't work on the modern battlefield which favors less maneuver and less attrition. But yes, please do keep writing checks with your big mouth that your moves can't cash. Please continue to give the Russians more challenges, Abrams, and leopards to parade around as defeated war trophies.
Great video
Great video. Would you be willing to make a video on the Heimwehr and Austrofacism under Dolfuß?
What about the interactions inside the Central Powers? Is there a chance Austria Hungary sought after German support because they knew they would not get it after 1914 due to deteriorating relations between the Powers?
Well, Germany gave the blank cheque of support partly because they didn’t directly support Austria the last time (the Bosnian crisis, iirc?), so Germany felt like they absolutely had to support Austria in their next move in order to maintain the alliance and not be diplomatically isolated.
This is just mostly based on one of the «origins of WW1» episodes of the Revolutions, podcast series 10.
Watching this makes me want to play the great war redux or kaiserreich😅
It's no surprise at all that fans of this channel want to fantasize about Germany winning the war.
One day Old Britannia should make a history video completely out of his field of work of Britain and Europe and do a video on something super random like idk the Aztecs or Polynesians. Try to get as far away from Europe and talk about the geopolitical issues and questions of say Pre-Colombian Latin America or the atolls of the western pacific. Anyways love the videos and the quality is always sky high and improving! Your channel will one day get its recognition and flowers it deserves!
I know right? So many CZcamsrs languish in their comfort zone. I follow Primitive Technology, and not once has he done any motor vehicle repair.
Very well done. I approve of your sources. One author you might want to look at as well is John Keegan. I think his take on WW1 goes well with your own.
Just one detail, the CPs held their side of the bargain with the Russians in 1909, they had always been willing to support the Russians on the matter of the straits... only that their new BRITISH "allies" were not so inclined, so the Russians consented on Bosnia in excahnge for the straits issue, only for diplomatic defeat to come from an unexpected side.
...aaaaand then blamed the Austrians.
There is always more to know with WW1
What a gem of a channel! 💙
nice analysis
One thing I find interesting about this is that had the war started later, there’s a good chance that the British would have aligned themselves with the German Empire due to fears of Russian modernization and power. This is because British policy throughout the last century had been to prevent any of the other European powers from becoming hegemonic and to keep the powers divided and competing against each other and away from British colonial ambitions.
Now in 1914 this, along with the invasion of Belgium, led Britain to declare war on Germany due to its sheer military power, dominating influence, and the naval arms race, but had the war started in 1918 we might have seen a completely different outcome. For one thing with Russia modernization, as mentioned in the video, the Schlieffen plan would not have been implemented, and a more defensive approach would have been taken to help defend from the massive and rapid onslaught of modernized Russian forces. In addition to this, with modernization completed, Britain would be far more worried about Russian hegemony, military might, ambitions in Central Asia, and, most worrying of all, naval buildup and control of Constantinople. These combined with a longer period of Anglo-German Detente could very likely flip British opinion towards the Central Powers against the Entente and in particular Russia.
Honestly I'm not too sure about British realignment and it probably would have to do with fleet ambitions. Like, if Russia would have signed limiting naval contracts and would show no ambitions for oversee expansion, I think the British might have preferred them over the Germans, with which the, already had a naval arms race
@@hanneswiggenhorn2023That was my first thought as well, but due to the massive land borders of the Russian Empire it would only take one Invasion into one of several countries to border British colonial holdings. Russia didnt need a navy to rip apart the British empire, they were basically neighbours.
Honestly, even a less ambitious Schlieffen Plan would've kept Britain out. Everyone knew about Germany's plans to attack through Belgium - hell, France had their own plans of attacking Germany through Belgium. Shortly before the war broke out, Britain concluded that they did not have a specific legal obligation to protect Belgian neutrality. The problem was that Germany sent Belgium a letter basically saying "hey, we're going to use you for our way, but we're but trying to conquer you, so if you're cool about it, we'll make it worth your while" which is an affront to national dignity that Belgium can't accept and that made Germany look real bad. Plus, Germany didn't just seize Southern Belgian rail lines and stations as everyone assumed they would. They occupied the whole country. Those two factors pushed Britain into the war when without them, Britain would've probably just *tsk tsk*ed, and went back to tea.
@@DerAptrgangr I personally wouldn't be too sure, because Britain wasn't too happy about Germanys fleet ambitions, and if France would be hit too badly, I would imagine Britain intervening to prevent a German takeover of the French navy, because that could be a serious threat for British naval dominance and could make future things like blockades hard to impossible
Wait so how exactly did AH snub Italy repeatedly for 10 years preceding the war?
Excellent points-appreciate the deeper dive on starting the war and Italian inaction preventing German victory
@oldbrittania this is a great video on the subject. Dr. Michael Neiberg, who works for the U.S. National WWI museum, has appeared in many good CZcams videos on how WWI started and makes many excellent points about the topic. I don’t know if you do interviews, but it might be worth reaching out to him if you want to try something like that.
Fantastic video!!!
Thanks for the upload as always.
I love your channel and will always cherish it.
Now I wanted to point out something incredibly important that seems to be overlooked in the long run (I'm talking history in general here.)
A lot of the political maneuvering mentioned in the video was because of major geopolitical mistakes the Austro-Hungarians made especially the annexation of Bosnia.
The annexation of Bosnia caused three problems that set AH on a collision course.
1. It irreversibly angered the Russians and ensured the league of three emperors was dead forever.
Russia after that moment treated AH as an empire that HAD to be humbled before it caused more problems for Europe geopolitically.
2. It completely united the Serbian people against the AH government and set Serbia on a collision course against her. Relations were always bad from before this, stopping Serbia from getting a coastline in Albania really stung domestically. (It permanently alienated the Bulgarians too since Serbia couldn't give Macedonia to her and fulfill the treaty she signed. Serbia could not allow itself to gain nothing from the Balkan war afterall.)
By 1900, Serbia understood it was going to have to fight its neighbors if it wanted to unite with other Serbs and Slavic speaking peoples under her banner.
When Serbia won the Balkan war against the Ottomans with the assistance of its neighbors, it proved the Serbs could field a modern army and defeat a major power it gave the high command a probably unhealthy level of confidence. Which it was able to show off in the campaigns of 1914-1916.
3. And finally, it isolated AH on the world stage.
Almost no one in Europe approved of the annexation.
(Germany aside and they begrudgingly tolerated it.)
Britain was angry it would upset the balance of power in the region and anger the Serbs irreversibly.
France disliked AH for allying with the Germans to begin with.
Italy had claims on AH lands. And already disliked the idea of any expansion by AH into the Balkans further.
The Ottomans despised the decision but couldn't go against it for obvious reasons.
Serbia and Montenegro and Romania both had territorial claims on AH land as well. (Romania's king aside as stated in this video with him being pro AH.)
I hope this helped highlight the period a bit further for people. Have a nice day. 👍
2 minutes ago is crazy
Great video! I hope one the next ones would be on Austro-Serbian relations from 1878 to 1914. You could get all the juicy topics: the Treaty of Berlin and subsequent occupation of Bosnia (1878), the Austro-Serbian Convention (1881), the bloody end to the dynastic wars in Serbia (1903), the Annexation Crisis (1908), as well as good ol' Balkan Wars (1912-13). Also, you could cover the position of South Slavs in the Monarchy in this period. It would reveal a lot that would fulfill the story started in this video.
One more thing: Franz Ferdinand tend to be re-interpreted as a war-feaful reformer. But his idea of a Trilater Union had a specific identity (Croatia-orientated instead of Yugoslav- or pan-Slavic one) and reasons (Franz was notoriously on bad terms with the Hungarians and saw the Austro-Hungarian settlement as a major hindrance for the Monarchy).
great video
Nothing will ever make me understand how the leaders and great men of the world of the Belle Epoque felt it a reasonable or even conceivable course of action to destroy that beautiful world, that epopee of civilisation, in the pursuit of a handful of villages or some colonial commercial concession
That’s the human condition, I suppose. We don't always make the best choices.
I gotta say, though. "Apogee of civilization", I'm not so sure. This was the absolute peak of European Colonialism and Imperialism; racism and economic exploitation is not civilized behavior. In most of the world women didn't have the vote yet either.
@@olefredrikskjegstad5972 exactly... and economic exploitation is peak civilisation, as organisation grow so does power projection capabilities. Isolationism leads to stagnation.
@@olefredrikskjegstad5972 sounds great
Ask the British
@@olefredrikskjegstad5972Sure is civilized behaviour.
I've always found the Italian-Austro Hungarian alliance to be one of the stranger occurrences in history. Being allied to the country that you want land from never made much sense to me. As the second Morrocan Crisis showed Italys commitment to the Triple alliance was always rather shaky. The Italians always had far more to gain by fighting against the Austrians than with them.
As for the idea that Serbia posed an existential threat to the Austro Hungarian empire by 1914 I'm not sure. I know certain people in Vienna believed it (Conrad Von Hotzendorf being the most infamous) but there were plenty that didn't buy it. Both in Vienna and especially Budapest. Serbia may not have been a "normal nation" acting in the way a normal nation should. It did have a shadowy military organisation kinda sorta running the country and murdering politicians it didn't like. They had just massively increased in size, resources and population via conquest (and behaved abhorrently while doing so), they did sponsor if not outright cause the murder of Franz Ferdinand which isn't exactly playing by the rules either. But an existential threat? I'm not sure
The Hungarian half of the empire led by Istvan Tisza didn't believe it. If Franz Ferdinand was the most anti war person in the empire then Tisza was the second most. He was wholly unconvinced of the merits of a war with Serbia and not for pacifistic reasons. He (correctly) thought that Romania would seize on any Austro Hungarian weakness and seize Transylvania and even if Austria Hungary beat Serbia what then? Incorporate more Slavs into the empire? That was the last thing the Hungarians wanted. Better to maintain the status quo. Perhaps Tisza was right. Given what actually happened not going to war with Serbia couldn't have been worse than what happened in reality
Ultimately it's an unknowable. Was Europe left in a fundamentally unstable state after the second Balkan War? Possibly. Was Serbia a fundamental threat to the integrity of the Austro Hungarian empire? Possibly. But unless we get a time machine and rerun the 20th century minus WW1 we'll never know
The Italian-Austrian alliance was no stranger than the Franco-Italian alliance. Both France and Austria had ethnically Italian land that Italy wanted
Rarely it is briought up but Austria-Hungary wanted to invaded Italy after the earthquake of Messina in 1908 (7,1 mW, 80 thousands dead) and only the intervention of Germany stopped it.
Also Austria was pursuing a germanization and slavization of the "italian element" (quoted from Franz Joseph order).
Italy had its fair share of reasons to not be so loyal
@@andreamarino6010 Yes, both Italy and Austria-Hungary basically expected to go to war with each other at some point, despite their alliance.
Some interesting observations but not sure they’re factually correct
After recovering from the shock of a start pre midnight, I thought I was listening to a modern version of AJP Taylor "How Wars Begin". Then I saw the credits. As interesting and entertaining as what I recall from AJP. Years back I mentioned that series and the work colleague I sat next to for years, explained how he was waiting for someone on a visit to the university where AJP was and was dragged into playing a game of chess by the historian.
Really good video about a subject that has caused many a furrowed brow.
Germany was not the primary decision-maker to go into WWI; it was A-H, Serbia, and Russia. We need to analyse these people.
Without Germany, WW1 doesn't happen. Straight up. All they had do to was say they dont support A-H's goals(which were fucking dumb) and WW1 just never happens. Yes, an eastern war might have happened, but that would be on A-H. They didn't need to do any of this, either. They were just a stupid, ridiculous imperialist wannabe empire and couldn't let go of territory they never really had any control of in the first place and was never theirs, either. They were awful.
You are correct, Germany didn't start it they were forced into it
@@johnnyo8299They should have just found new allies by not being friends with the dying Austrians and Ottomans
@@counterfeit1148 Austria Hungary and the Ottomans weren’t dying Empires. They were as I heard somewhere, Empires in need of reform. They could have been saved. Plus Germany wasn’t in an alliance with the Ottomans until WW1 had actually begun.
@@generaltom6850 They've been needing reform for so long it's unlikely they would have gotten it before dying from any other means
This guy be spitting out dissertations at a rate university history professors can only dream of doing.
This guy would be laughed out of any university. It only fools idiots like you who dont know better.
First? Just as I was getting up to clean I refresh my front page and this video is just released. I couldn't ask for a better timing.
Qui Bono ?
After two world wars against Germany Great Britain lost its Empire
and was almost bankrupt right ?
On the other side America………
The winner also ends up a looser. In time this set the USA on the path to indebtedness, overextended military bases and alliances. Whoever wins in Ukraine today will also be a looser in other ways
they are bankrupt now
look at what the j'e wwwwws had to say about ww1 and look at the west today and you'll see it clear as day who the winners were
@@chrisstucker1813 britain hasn't been run by the british since before victoria, just another j'e wwww ish colony
Another excellent video; thanks! Unless I'm misremembering, the phrasing in this video contains more topics for consideration than recitations of absolute fact.
Nice video
It really didn't.
Seriously, this whole analysis is fucking insane, and it spends so much time making boring and accurate historical claims all while ignoring and dismissing the most critical factors. And of course it fools thousands of people cuz humans are morons. Germany could have prevented WW1 by simply saying "No" to Austria-Hungary, but didn't. They were 100% responsible. Germany had no geopolitical need to support Austria-Hungary and in fact could likely have played things to their favor if they just let their sloppy ass neighbors to the SE fuck themselves over and continued to secure their own improving state instead.
What if instead of Germany alienating Russia in the late 1800s, they did the opposite especially after the Austrian-Prussain War?
As far as I can tell, Germany had a choice of either befriending Austria-Hungary or Russia, but whoever they chose, the other would be allied to France?
Yep
The maps are a bit confusing - it would've helped if you'd put allies in the same colour. Having Austria and the UK both being red makes them look like allies, not enemies.
The war and its start is very complicated. I think it would take a week and 1h vids and even then you could not fit it all in. Keep up the good I enjoy it.
It's actually not complicated at all. The details are complicated and interesting, but WW1 started solely because Germany decided they'd support Austria-Hungary in their dumbass little squabble. They escalated what could have been a local war into something massive that killed tens of millions. And they only did it cuz they thought they could WIN such a war.
Great video.
Could you explain why Italy betrayed their alliance with the central powers?
Well they really didn't betray anything, it was a defensive alliance, Germany and Austria were the ones who declared war, meaning they had no obligation to go to war. In addition Italy was kinda nationalistic so they wanted Dalmatia, Trent and Trieste from Austria, perhaps if Austria offered this during July they might have joined but we'd never know.
So in all, they didn't have to under the treaty they had signed, so when they had the choice to stay out they did (we can clearly see why today, in 1914 though it was political reasons). And afterwards, France, Britain and Russia just promised more land to Italy after the war.
As they were in alliance for what worth staying neutral was one thing going over was betrayal perhaps this wasn't entirely forgiven nor forgotten by Germany regarding WW2
@@heart4740Italy had no obligation to go to war on their side, however, they did have an obligation _to not go to war against them._ (At least in the text of the alliance. Italy argued Austria-Hungary had already reneged on the agreements and so it was null.)
@@ljubicica7102 Yes, under the triple alliance treaty they did have that obligation, but the actual treaty itself expired in 1887 and was never renewed. As such the triple alliance wasn't actually bound by a treaty but more of an understanding of what this alliance meant.
As for the Italian argument of Austria breaking this alliance, it was a spiritual argument where they felt that Austria had not fulfilled terretorial promises that made them enter into the treaty as well as being treated as a junior partner. How much of this was justification to the Italian parliment in order to join the war I don't know and I won't speculate on it
@@heart4740 It was renewed in 1887, and continued to be renewed periodically after that. The last renewal was in 1912.
Great video as usual but the comment section is also, as usual, filled with LARPing weirdos and paradox game kiddies.
This channel deserves way more attention. Cause this is good content. And you can see the work put into it.
ngl I didnt even recognise this was a video from you at first, the thumbnail style was so different
0:09 no, it was because a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry.
funny enough, Austria in german is Österreich
@@Levit7 *German
But Austria started it?
They would not have started it without what one person memorably called a "do whatever the fuck you want, I'm in, bro" oath from Germany.
@@bomberharris1943 So if you want to beat someone up, I tell you "do whatever the fuck you want, I'm in, bro" and you beat him up while I'm just watching, I am the one who started all this?
@@Ren3gaid If he was too chickenshit to actually do it without your assurance, yes.
I have two video ideas.
1. Why Italy doomed the Central Powers; a video about the knock on effects Italy joining had in WW1 and how despite their poor performance they almost certainly determined the fate of the war. (Namely they sucked up critical manpower the Austrians needed elsewhere, leaving them open to the Brusilov Offensive that nearly broke them in 1916. This in turn required Germany to divert manpower to save them, which cost them the battles of The Somme and Verdun and would ultimately force them to retreat from their forward positions in 1917, leaving them in poor position for an offensive and wasting time when manpower arrived in 1918.) No Italy means no Brusilov Offensive which means Germany wins Somme and Verdun which gives them extremely good forward positions to capture Calais and the Marne in 1918 and win the war,
2. Why Spain Came The Closest To Joining the Central Powers(a video about Spain in 1915, their pro-central power military, their economic problems, and how close they came to joining the war in 1915 on several occasions)
(It’s also possible, albeit harder to say, that without Italy sucking up manpower, Germany and Austria may well have knocked Russia out of the war in 1915. The offensive came extremely close to taking Minsk and encircling the Russian army and if they the war would have ended in the east. )
Best diplomatic history channel around, bar none.
When a country sees waging war as its only way to survive on the diplomatic stage.. it has already lost the struggle before its very beginning (the same case of Japan in 1941).
All war is failure of a peace , countries often go to war when they don't have much to lose reputation , breaking a taboo wise such as with Russia and probably China the way things are going in east Asia hence when the relationship is positive disputes tend to be addressed peacefully as going to war makes one look bad hence why say 20 years ago there was no chance of disputes between Russia and Ukraine being sought to be resolved by war but as the relationship between Russia and the west deteriorated war was no longer such a taboo
Belgium began conscription in 1913 and France extended conscription to 3 years in 1913.
True but the law would almost certainly have been revoked the following year. It also helped rather than hindered the Germans. Biggest own goal of the pre-war world by making plan XVII possible. Had the French and Belgians not lost their marbles for the first 4 weeks the Germans shouldn’t have got passed liege.
@@OldBritanniaI didn't mention this as it likely wouldn't have been part of German calculations but France was also a year out from replacing those infamous blue coats and getting proper helmets. France was the first in ww1 to have all its troops have modern metal helmets.
Can't help but think if the war started sooner either Germany would win quickly (unlikely imo) or Germany would be unable to continue the war due to industrial ammonia production only starting in 1913. They would run out of explosives
And if the war started later I don't see Austria surviving the opening offensive. Even in our timeline Russia managed to destroy 45% of Austria's eastern front troops in under 3 weeks
@@OldBritannia Plan XVII was more a diplomatic rather than millitary one which I concede, is quite strange. This plan was based on the bases to not touch Belgium (to not alienate Britain) and keeping Italy neutral (this aim has been eased by the 1902 secret neutrality treaty between France and Italy). Its offensive attitude in Alsace-Lorraine was due to political reasons back in home (as you mentioned yourself in some videos, Alsace-Lorraine was of prime importance to the French). It was quite inaccurate on how to carry out an attack in German hold Alsace Lorraine. The results were what the plan was bound to bring about : British entering into the war, Italian neutrality and the inability of breaking through Alsace Lorraine due to its inaccuracy.
Therefore we can argue that even the XVII plan was a tactical defeat, it was a strategic victory because all the diplomatic aims of France were achieved which was a great step toward victory. I don't see how France could have had another plan given the circumstances of the pre war world such as the importance of dragging Britain into the war. the only thing that could be changed is the prediction of the invasion of Belgium, plan XVII took it as a possibility but the French military didn't think that it would be on such a large scale. We can argue that the reaction could have been better, true but it could have been so also for the Germans. All sides make mistake. As a French idiomatic says " with “ifs”, we could bottle Paris"