Become a member of this UA-cam channel in order to watch videos ad-free, and get exclusive access to bonus video episodes, available only to members of The Rest Is History Club and members of the UA-cam channel: ua-cam.com/channels/UYK0BJZF3yNb2fw1EdAXUQ.htmljoin
Tom’s brother James Holland and Al Murray also have a v good podcast called ‘we have ways of making you talk’. They also combine knowledge with humour to both entertain and educate, mainly on WW2 subjects. Well worth a listen or watch imo 👍
Absolutely. There are a number of authors who should be heard through the authors voice: Tom, Dominic, Bill Bryson, Rory & Alistair, Sandi Toskvig….and their are some readers who embody the author, such as Tony Robinson’s reading of Terry Pratchett’s wonderful Disc World series. Speaking of which - I hope there will be appropriate references to Blackadder series 4 during your last episode discussing the actual battles…what does such an interpretation from the late 1980’s say about the legacy of WWI in Britain??
I think many authors (in all genres) prefer not to. Quite a few articulate their ideas differently in writing than verbal and thus, a verbatim narration can seem alien and uncomfortable to them. Sort of like a brilliant architect trying to field supervise the construction crew working on their design.
I absolutely love your content guys, you bring history to life, and youve given me a better understanding of western history and how it pertains to the modern day... Thanking you for your podcasts
Having watched countless documentaries about World War I since childhood and read numerous books on the subject, I can honestly say this is one of the most informative and enjoyable series I’ve ever seen. It has filled so many gaps in my knowledge while being thoroughly gripping and entertaining. The fascinating descriptions and insights into the political workings of figures like Ambassador Maurice Paléologue add a lively and cheerful touch. Well done, and keep up the fantastic work!
Looking forward to Dominic going into this much detail about how WW2 started with the British having the 'melancholy belligerency' during their March cabinet meetings, Chamberlain's fear of a German-Polish agreement, the Peace Front policy, Polish bellicosity during the Danzig Crisis, the Polish ultimatum to Danzig of August 4th, Hitler's mental breakdown at the prospect of war with Britain, the Franco-Italian attempts to save peace in early September and ultimately Chamberlain's ultimatum made under pressure from Churchill's parliamentary pressure group.
Tour de force. The WWI series should remind all of us of the fragility of peace. We shall remember (I hope). Recent events should sharpen our focus on the invaluable lessons of the past. Their work has inspired me to read Dominic’s work on modern British history. Especially since I remember the events of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s so vividly. The current trajectory of the country was written then. More lessons for all, just as the dire warnings of the events that led us all to the cataclysm of WWI and sadly the subsequent rejection of the peace to WWII.
Something these podcasts have suggested to me is that the technological lag between war machines and communications was the main reason for this catastrophe. Had the powers had a reliable way of communicating with eachother, they could have talked each other down. On the battlefield too the inability to do anything other than war by timetable meant millions died almost in a predetermined way. Horrific. Whilst wishing to avoid complacency, I think it's much easier now for those in power to communicate with their counterparts to avoid major wars. That being said Ukraine has shown that minor wars are still more than possible.
That to me seems a weak argument for the proposition. I don't think it can be argued that the Russian mobilisation was the biggest single escalation, but there were plenty of different causes to escalate the tensions felt by the Russians and also plenty of opportunities to stop the madness even afterwards. If anything from these podcasts, assuming nothing key has been missed or a frame of reference been skewed, the French sound like the bad guys in all this. Most self interested, most keen for war without caring for the consequences and most provocative.
Fellas, great show. Great discussions. Spectacular reading recommendations. Thank you for the work done for the show and all the work done to obtain, internalize, and then share your combined knowledge with all of us, your viewers.
Fascinating stuff. My grandmother was evacuated from the East End of London at the beginning of the war due to the Zeppelin bombing. They came to the Midlands and never went back. That's why I don't have a Cockney accent.
The First World War was the most disastrous and devastating conflict in all history. What a tragedy that the peacemakers didn’t hold sway. These revelations are so interesting and informative, can’t thank you guys enough.
This is the final episode in our series on the road to WW1, see the full playlist here: ua-cam.com/play/PLEbAHi3fZpuHE1QmqTfhBM9kkr_QSyXtW.html. This is a Saturday 'catch up' episode of The Rest Is History where we release episodes that were previously audio-only for the first time on video. This episode is parts 5 and 6 of our series on the road to WW1 from earlier in the year.
Why is there not a picture of George V? WHY? Why do you lie all the time? Why do you misrepresent the history so bad, why? Why do you leave your part out? Why do you whitewash the British Empire and its chokehold on the whole world? ... this is no history, this is ideology, pure and simple. Horrible.
Finally finished watching. Really enjoyable. Moltke wanted to crush the Russians and everybody else was collateral damage. He had no respect for the French and British armies. Grey didn’t do enough to keep us out. The French wanted to fight us in 1898. They became terrified of the Germans and looked for allies. Had they not enlisted Russia they would not have been invaded and we could have stayed out. Grey was stupid to be so secretive and to be used by the French. The war was a disaster for the British Empire.
We all love the kaiser. 😂 out of all over them he is the most fun . And he got away with it all . Lived a long life . Got remarried . Chopped up fire wood for fun in his old age. 😂
@@jezalb2710yes . We had to fight ww2 but .... why was there a Hitler ? Why did the communist take power in Russia ? It all comes back to ww1 . The world was on the right track in 1913 . Germany was ahead of all the other nations.
The Edward Grey quote - 'the lights are going out...' is a clear adaptation of William Pitt's quote in the Napoleonic Wars 'Roll up the map: it will not be wanted these ten years.'
Before Fukuyama's "The end of history" there was a dispatch of European ambassadors to British Foreign Minister few weeks before Sarajevo crisis : "Europe, united by three royal cousins, finally enjoys lasting peace"...
Surely, the reality behind Germany , Britain and Belgium is that Germany was well aware that Britain would declare war if Belgium was invaded but believed that France would have been knocked out of the war before Britain could get meaningful numbers of troops across the channel. In German thinking, Britain's military strength - her navy - would not be relevant in the couple of months it would take to win the war in the west. Before she could fight in France or Belgium, Britain would have to raise and train an army - not a short term matter!
I remember studying about WW1 in school, but I don't remember a lot about it. Then later in life I started studying more about my family history. That is when I remembered from my mom that my great-grandfather had served and returned disabled, but she never said what had happened to him. By this time, she had passed away. So, I am really enjoying seeing and hearing discussions about the Great War. I am an American.
Thank you. Still Watching and Listening from Alaska. 🤔 Been reviewing the trajectory of these events with an eye towards some understanding of current events. 🤔
The question about why the Tory party was so hawkish in 1914 I don't think was probably explained here. It may seem surprising given Disraeli's/Salisbury's cautious isolationism that the Tory part was so keen for war, but in the bigger context it is not so much. Firstly it is worth bearing in my the Tories were always a broad church even in the late 19th century and there was also an aggressive expansionist and imperialist wing of the party, the kind of that pushed Disraeli and Salisbury into adventures in South Africa in the Zulu War and the two Boer Wars. The second Boer war had, in the eyes of some Tories, discredited the Serisberian isolationist position - hence the move towards alliances with France, Japan and Russia. Joseph Chamberlain was a leading light in this - his imperial tariff reforms and proposals for imperial federation were specifically part of a policy of martial reinvigoration of the British empire. The feeling that Britain was weak and losing ground against its enemies - militarily and economically - was an all consuming preoccupation of the age, given British agriculture had been on its knees the the 1870s long depression and British industry was starting to become less competitive. The sheer numbers of people who were rejected after volunteering for the Second Boer War fed into the great fear that Britain's highly industrial society was ennervating the social and physical fabric of its manhood. The Liberals responded to this with a kind of proto-welfare state but the Conservatives were more inclined towards a dose of policies such as National Service - which was heavily promoted in this period and may have been implemented by a Conservative government if elected - and military preparation. The war was seen as a way to unite the empire, reinvigorate the martial qualities of its population in a baptism of fire and halt the decline against Germany and the US and of course unite a country against a common external foe when it looked as if it were about to tear itself apart over Ireland mere months before the war stated.. Most importantly was the state of paranoia among much of the respectable Tory press and backbenchers about German intentions. Britain has wearily accepted German unification but was never extremely thrilled about it. It was perhaps the most critical change to the balance of power since the settlement in Vienna in 1815 and had worried British statesmen intensely. Whilst work was done in the 1890s by the Tory government of the time to improve relations, ultimately this came to little, and a growing sense of paranoia about Germany's intentions took hold. The Tory press, such as the Daily Mail published many scare stories about possible German invasion plans. Germany's naval rearmament was seen in the worse and most fearful terms and much pressure was placed on the Liberal government to respond in kind. The abiding memories in 1914 were of German heavy handedness in the 1911 Agadir crisis which lead to the same people in both the Liberal and Tory parties then as in 1914 demanding a firmer stance against Germany. (See Lloyd George's Mansion House speech, or Churchill's decision to move warships to oil at this point.) The Tory party by this point had thoroughly convinced themselves that Germany was a threat that would have to be dealt with one way or another to insure the security of the realm. In the rancid political enviroment of the late 1900s and 1910s, the Liberal party was seen as being soft on Germany, perhaps best represented by the Germanophile Lord Chancellor Haldane. The fact is, whether or not you regard Britain's entry into the war as a good thing or not, I don't think it was politically feasible for Asquith to avoid it one way or the other. The Tory party was in favour, as was half the Liberal party, and probably more after the invasion of Belgium. Even if Asquith had avoided pressure then, any peace treaty between France and Germany that led to the annexation of channel ports in Belgium would likely have proved intolerable to British politicians and pushed them into a war, given a large part of both the political elite and the population at large had become convinced that an assurgent and expanding Germany was a mortal threat to the survive of Britain and the British Empire. And if the war had not ended earlier the inevitable demands of Germany to Britain not to supply France and give up control of the channel and Atlantic coast for the duration of the war would likely have been considered a insult that could not be met with force. Prime Ministers of a far more reactionary and isolationist bent had been press-ganged by war fever and imperialist adventures before and there is no sense I think that Asquith could constitutionally or intellectually avoid the pressure for entry.
Keeping up appearances keeps one up to date, and the UK was up to date for war in 1939 because of choosing war in 1914, standing still is the dangerous policy, you cannot rely on theory, active involvement advantages - and supposing appeasement a dangerous policy in 1938 on this account is incorrect, because there was no war and the PM was actively involved in the crisis, so the UK involvement in 1914 was quite inevitable, and 1939 represented a consequence rather than any attempt to keep up appearances.
I wonder if the journey to WW1 could be made into a TV series farce ? It might be worth a go. Of course the dream casting for Kaiser Wilhelm would have been John Cleese who could have reprised his Basil Fawlty character. I also wish Britain and France had stayed out of WW1 and then after the dust settled the Kaiser could have written his autobiography ' Triumph of the Willy '.
As I went through the podcast, I felt absolutely gutted and horrified.. How can a few sent millions to their slaughter knowing fully the consequences.. Also, many thanks to both the hosts for making history so raw...... As if happened last week. I am going to remember this podcast for a long time
I have tried to listen to this podcast several times but it breaks my heart to know, despite (may be because of) the opportunities to the contrary, how it all ends.
Just FYI: The gunboat you mentioned at 31:20, the SMS Bodrog, was recently restored and is now parked just off Kalemegdan fortress. It survived WWI and was incorporated into the Yugoslav royal navy as the Sava. During the Nazi occupation in WWII, it was used by the Croatian navy and was returned to the Yugo military in ‘45. In the late 1950s, it was demilitarized and then used for decades as a river barge. A decade ago it underwent a total renovation, and is now a museum ship in Belgrade.
Apocryphal story - In the 1930s the Asquiths attended a party in London attended by the rich & famous. The actress Jean Harlow was there and kept calling Margot MarGOT. Eventually she'd had enough, and told Harlow - "No dear. The 't' is silent, as in Harlow!"
I am listening to your intro now. The quote from cousin William is funny but please use stronger consonants and drop pr accents when trying German 😂😂😂❤❤❤
Fascinating to learn that von Moltke was a Christian Scientist. I only mention this because at the outbreak of WW2 the C-In-C RAF Bomber Command, Ludlow-Hewitt, was also a Christian Scientist. Two very senior military commanders each a member of a minor Christian following.
Really hoping this world war 1 topic continues. Obviously getting knee deep into battles is a bit much but would love to hear more about the treaty of versailles and Brest litovsk and some of the diplomatic undercurrents of this diplomatic cast of characters reaction to some of the events of the war!
I find the accounts of ambassadors and politicians and their spouses sobbing over the descent into war ... extremely moving. What a tragedy that War was.
We let ourselves get sucked in by France. Look at what they are doing to us now . We are paying them millons to stop the small boats. France is the real enemy
Magisterial. Lots of issues raised but the one that intrigues me was the issue of Belgian neutrality. During the Franco-Prussian War Britain had taken quite a strong position in that if France attacked Belgium, Britain would align itself with Prussia in defending Belgian neutrality and if Prussia attacked Belgium Britain would align itself with France in protecting Belgian neutrality (Richard Shannon, Vol 2 Gladstone, p.88). The precedent had been set as regards Belgian sovereignty, and by a Liberal government as well, so why would things be so different in the August of 1914?
I don’t disagree but the point I was trying to make was that Britain had stood by Belgium once before, and in living memory. So why was such a possibility either discounted or from what we know, not even discussed in the planning of 1914?
@ because the stakes are much higher. Plus we aren’t really talking about Belgium at this point, more whether France will be attacked. They don’t yet know that Germany will invade Belgium.
Possibly. But the possibility cannot have been discounted. With uncanny accuracy Churchill had predicted the line of the German attack back in 1912 along with the point where the attack would run out of steam. His timescale was out by about 48 hours.
What about the professional backstabbers? Italy... They unified their nation by losing every war of independence but always had a lucky alliance with someone who gave them land, they had an alliance during the WW1 and betrayed them, joined the war against Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire and gained more land at the end of the war and during the WW2 they changed sides like nothing and at the end of the war they were given more land.... impressive! Machiavellian.
Brilliant series! I would LOVE a show discussing the "knock on effects" (you Brits are rubbing off on me) of WWI. It is routinely asserted as fact that WW2 was a direct consequence of WWI, but I'd love to hear a discussion detailing how this is true. It seems to be treated as a simple article of faith.
Could never understand why Germans thought French would surrender even if Schlieffan plan was successful even though France wouldn't give in in 1870 when their armies were all crushed.
I'm not sure I even know what Chatham high street is (sort of the main street of some English town?) but my interest is more and more piqued with every mention and I would definitely watch it.
Effective international relations depend on clarity. Kissinger taught history at Harvard and travelled everywhere to speak to world leaders. He changed American policy on Taiwan after speaking to Zhou Enlai in China. To build a rapport, he accompanied Foreign Secretary Tony Crosland to watch Grimsby play football (Crosland was the local MP). Nobody knew what Britain would do in 1914, it was a mystery. Grey could not speak a foreign language and would not travel. He conducted his diplomacy through a German ambassador ignored by Berlin and a French ambassador who could not speak English. He was indolent and a terrible foreign secretary. Salisbury regarded his job as avoiding conflict with other great powers. Grey failed.
An obvious solution to me was Britain declaring there would be arbitration and if one side didn’t turn up, it would join the other in the war. If neither showed up it would stay neutral. I feel this would have forced all parties to the negotiating table. Could someone explain why this plan either doesn’t work or why the British wouldn’t implement it? I know there must be a reason it isn’t feasible as it was never suggested in the video and it came to me immediately
You know what this video feels like? "Oh, what a bummer, Bob. Such a terrible faceplant in front of the whole world! What went wrong?" "Well, Jim, let's check the instant replay." "Darn, Bob, it looks like he didn't make it that time either."
The conclusion I draw from this discussion is that the war which, in the minds of practically everyone, eternally discredited monarchs and brought on the golden age of bureaucrats and civil servants, was in fact caused by those very same bureaucrats and civil servants against the express wishes of their monarchs. 🤔
Turns out popular history is radically different from the truth. Next subject, a 6 hour look at how WW2 began. These formats are great because most people have only been educated by the 'documentaries' that literally spend about 2 minutes on how these wars start, and swiftly move onto "Germany invades Belgium" or something.
@@AFGuidesHDat least 5hrs of which are required to explain the complex nature of the UK pre-war diplomacy, since the word appeasement was part of the complexity rather than explanatory
Asking if ww1 was inevitable is not the question to ask. One should ask what took the countries. So long to fight? Why they waited is the answer to find.
Just a point about France although it had been England's rival for centuries this wasn't the case for Scotland. There was a sort of "dual nationality" which only possibly ended in 1906. In fact in 1942 De Gaulle called the Auld Alliance the oldest in the world.
@billythedog-309 acknowledged by De Gaulle "In every combat where for five centuries the destiny of France was at stake, there were always men of Scotland to fight side by side with men of France, and what Frenchmen feel is that no people has ever been more generous than yours with its friendship"
@@Wee_Langside Whenever the French were under pressure from the English they would call on Scotland to invade England - escapades that cost the Scots the capture of one King and the death of another.
@@billythedog-309I think you've under estimated the kings killed and captured by just sticking to the Auld Alliance. There are a few for example Malcolm III, James II, then James III died shortly after Sauchieburn so three successive kings killed in conflicts with the English. William the Lion held hostage after capture. It was a hazard for all Kings Of Scots either being killed or captured by the English from even before the Norman Conquest staying independent came at a high cost.
As an American millennial, I feel some kinship with the Kaiser. I think your comparison to the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 feels like a good analogy. I was 20 when the towers were hit and it just felt inevitable (at the time) that we had to take out Bin Laden and anybody who defended him. Maybe history will view it differently, but that’s how it felt at the time. I suspect a monarch being killed by a terrorist feels akin to 3000 citizens being killed by terrorists.
Visiting the zoo was not that odd for Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon (1862-1933) who was well known as an ornithologist and author who wrote The Charm of Birds.
The French were to paranoid about German superiority in population, industrial output, military capacity etc. to allow Germany to defeat Russia while France remained neutral. Had that happened the French would have had to face a much strengthened Germany able to focus solely on their western front.
I am finding this episode very interesting and heartbreaking. To think WW1 could have been avoided, if Monarchs had the power back then we all think they had 😢
I don't buy that argument, Nicholas still had final say and he agreed. After that it couldn't be stopped. People just want to uphold the currently fashionable everyone is to blame view.
I have never heard such a great storytelling about historic event. I'm absolutely stunned by how fascinating this story is. A specially becouse as a polish I always knew version of the outbreak of WW1 from school, it was like: "Imbreded semi retarded imperators started fighting with each other, so we finally could rebuild our county on the ruins of their dump empires" xP
Become a member of this UA-cam channel in order to watch videos ad-free, and get exclusive access to bonus video episodes, available only to members of The Rest Is History Club and members of the UA-cam channel:
ua-cam.com/channels/UYK0BJZF3yNb2fw1EdAXUQ.htmljoin
I know I am getting old (& truly happy) when the highlight of my Saturday night is clicking on this belter.
Thank you !
Your comment confused me. Thought my phone was reading my inner monologue ;)
Same for Me at 35 lol
Your not getting old, your getting wise.
Same 😂
The conversational format of two friends banter works brilliantly to deliver the most serious content imaginable - world war! Learnt heaps - thanks😊
Tom’s brother James Holland and Al Murray also have a v good podcast called ‘we have ways of making you talk’. They also combine knowledge with humour to both entertain and educate, mainly on WW2 subjects.
Well worth a listen or watch imo 👍
Tom’s readings make me wish he’d been the narrator for his own audiobooks!
He did indeed narrate Rubicon!
Absolutely. There are a number of authors who should be heard through the authors voice: Tom, Dominic, Bill Bryson, Rory & Alistair, Sandi Toskvig….and their are some readers who embody the author, such as Tony Robinson’s reading of Terry Pratchett’s wonderful Disc World series. Speaking of which - I hope there will be appropriate references to Blackadder series 4 during your last episode discussing the actual battles…what does such an interpretation from the late 1980’s say about the legacy of WWI in Britain??
I think many authors (in all genres) prefer not to. Quite a few articulate their ideas differently in writing than verbal and thus, a verbatim narration can seem alien and uncomfortable to them. Sort of like a brilliant architect trying to field supervise the construction crew working on their design.
This is so much better than Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney + rolled into one
Tom's impersonations and Dominic trying to hold in his laughter are priceless 😂😂
The running gag of Tom being a reincarnation of Wilhelm II is beautifully handled throughout.
I absolutely love your content guys, you bring history to life, and youve given me a better understanding of western history and how it pertains to the modern day... Thanking you for your podcasts
Thank you !
100% agree!!
Having watched countless documentaries about World War I since childhood and read numerous books on the subject, I can honestly say this is one of the most informative and enjoyable series I’ve ever seen. It has filled so many gaps in my knowledge while being thoroughly gripping and entertaining. The fascinating descriptions and insights into the political workings of figures like Ambassador Maurice Paléologue add a lively and cheerful touch. Well done, and keep up the fantastic work!
This is definitely a series worth listening to again and again. So we'll done.
picture my delight yesterday evening as I set off on a 2 hour 15 minutes drive and saw this posted with a 2 hour 15 minute run time
Tom reading the letter . Omg . He always cracks me up. 😂
Good afternoon from the SF Bay Area. This has been such a great series, thank you. WWI is a real challenge to understand. Keep it up!
Thank you so much !
I can tell you how it began at least: Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry
@@imgoingonamarch Groan!!!!!😬
@@imgoingonamarchI had to look that up. Had to giggle.
One of their best ever. Totally addictive. Such a great format. They’re just the sort of friends you’d like to have.
I'm so delighted I managed to stumble onto your wonderful channel!
I love you, this is one of my favourite episodes of your podcast ❤ from Germany ❤
Such a good series. I have really loved this. Love the long format. Great job, please carry this on!!
Thank you - the story of WW1 will be picked up in the future !
The Rest is History lead up to WWI is in the top three best series they've done. Fantastic work.
These historical public information sessions remind me of the joy of learning at university.... Bravo gentlemen...
Looking forward to Dominic going into this much detail about how WW2 started with the British having the 'melancholy belligerency' during their March cabinet meetings, Chamberlain's fear of a German-Polish agreement, the Peace Front policy, Polish bellicosity during the Danzig Crisis, the Polish ultimatum to Danzig of August 4th, Hitler's mental breakdown at the prospect of war with Britain, the Franco-Italian attempts to save peace in early September and ultimately Chamberlain's ultimatum made under pressure from Churchill's parliamentary pressure group.
I’m hibernating for winter with this gem of a channel
This series is excellent, amusing and very important. Thank you very much.
Tour de force. The WWI series should remind all of us of the fragility of peace. We shall remember (I hope). Recent events should sharpen our focus on the invaluable lessons of the past.
Their work has inspired me to read Dominic’s work on modern British history. Especially since I remember the events of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s so vividly. The current trajectory of the country was written then. More lessons for all, just as the dire warnings of the events that led us all to the cataclysm of WWI and sadly the subsequent rejection of the peace to WWII.
Something these podcasts have suggested to me is that the technological lag between war machines and communications was the main reason for this catastrophe. Had the powers had a reliable way of communicating with eachother, they could have talked each other down. On the battlefield too the inability to do anything other than war by timetable meant millions died almost in a predetermined way. Horrific.
Whilst wishing to avoid complacency, I think it's much easier now for those in power to communicate with their counterparts to avoid major wars. That being said Ukraine has shown that minor wars are still more than possible.
Yet another incredible show. Thank you so much for doing these, I am enthralled by everything you cover.
In his book on the subject, Sean McMeekin says Russian mobilization was the key event and therefore Russia was most responsible for the catastrophe.
McMeekin's work has been eviscerated by Dominic Lieven, a more reliable guide.
That to me seems a weak argument for the proposition. I don't think it can be argued that the Russian mobilisation was the biggest single escalation, but there were plenty of different causes to escalate the tensions felt by the Russians and also plenty of opportunities to stop the madness even afterwards. If anything from these podcasts, assuming nothing key has been missed or a frame of reference been skewed, the French sound like the bad guys in all this. Most self interested, most keen for war without caring for the consequences and most provocative.
Seems pretty self evident after listening to this.
Fellas, great show. Great discussions. Spectacular reading recommendations. Thank you for the work done for the show and all the work done to obtain, internalize, and then share your combined knowledge with all of us, your viewers.
Fascinating stuff. My grandmother was evacuated from the East End of London at the beginning of the war due to the Zeppelin bombing. They came to the Midlands and never went back. That's why I don't have a Cockney accent.
Tom and Dominic bring joy to what is otherwise ridiculous tragedy.
yes , I find comfort listening to them no matter how horrifying he topic
That opening 😂😂😂😂
The First World War was the most disastrous and devastating conflict in all history. What a tragedy that the peacemakers didn’t hold sway. These revelations are so interesting and informative, can’t thank you guys enough.
Thank you, gentlemen, for this great series on the outbreak of the war.
Do keep it up.
Thank you
.
The knowledge and understanding you both bring to the subjects you cover bring me huge joy.
It's incredible this channel hasn't got millions of subscribers!
This is the final episode in our series on the road to WW1, see the full playlist here: ua-cam.com/play/PLEbAHi3fZpuHE1QmqTfhBM9kkr_QSyXtW.html. This is a Saturday 'catch up' episode of The Rest Is History where we release episodes that were previously audio-only for the first time on video. This episode is parts 5 and 6 of our series on the road to WW1 from earlier in the year.
Nov 16, 2024:
All is quiet on the weste- OH MY GOD?! A new The Rest is History episode has landed!!!
Not sure if I see it, but do you have the cortes/aztec series on youtube or planned in the near future?
Why is there not a picture of George V? WHY? Why do you lie all the time? Why do you misrepresent the history so bad, why? Why do you leave your part out? Why do you whitewash the British Empire and its chokehold on the whole world? ... this is no history, this is ideology, pure and simple. Horrible.
Púm
LOVE ❤ the content chaps!!!
Any chance of a series on the 30 years war at some point?
I'm confident nobody could bring it to life like you guys 😊
You just mentioned Madame Blavatsky, and it triggered a thought: How about an episode on Aleister Crowley?
Finally finished watching. Really enjoyable. Moltke wanted to crush the Russians and everybody else was collateral damage. He had no respect for the French and British armies. Grey didn’t do enough to keep us out. The French wanted to fight us in 1898. They became terrified of the Germans and looked for allies. Had they not enlisted Russia they would not have been invaded and we could have stayed out. Grey was stupid to be so secretive and to be used by the French. The war was a disaster for the British Empire.
Excellent vid. And well done for highlighting how important the Russian general mobilisation was in starting the War.
Fantastic conclusion to a brilliant series!
We all love the kaiser. 😂 out of all over them he is the most fun . And he got away with it all . Lived a long life . Got remarried . Chopped up fire wood for fun in his old age. 😂
The Dutch must have been furious when Germans invaded them in 1940
@@jezalb2710yes . We had to fight ww2 but .... why was there a Hitler ? Why did the communist take power in Russia ? It all comes back to ww1 . The world was on the right track in 1913 . Germany was ahead of all the other nations.
The Edward Grey quote - 'the lights are going out...' is a clear adaptation of William Pitt's quote in the Napoleonic Wars 'Roll up the map: it will not be wanted these ten years.'
Before Fukuyama's "The end of history" there was a dispatch of European ambassadors to British Foreign Minister few weeks before Sarajevo crisis :
"Europe, united by three royal cousins, finally enjoys lasting peace"...
Surely, the reality behind Germany , Britain and Belgium is that Germany was well aware that Britain would declare war if Belgium was invaded but believed that France would have been knocked out of the war before Britain could get meaningful numbers of troops across the channel. In German thinking, Britain's military strength - her navy - would not be relevant in the couple of months it would take to win the war in the west. Before she could fight in France or Belgium, Britain would have to raise and train an army - not a short term matter!
Your assessment is accurate. The problem is the arrogance and pride of human nature. All wars are sold as “short and quick,” but never are.
Once again, cracking stuff!
Thank you and your team for such splendid content!
Gentlemen, brilliant and suspensful episode! Will you please write a drama documentary series about all these events? It is all still too relevant!
Note well, no plans to pull back from the brink, no plans to stop, no plans to hold back….
Yes..that was not mentioned.
I remember studying about WW1 in school, but I don't remember a lot about it. Then later in life I started studying more about my family history. That is when I remembered from my mom that my great-grandfather had served and returned disabled, but she never said what had happened to him. By this time, she had passed away. So, I am really enjoying seeing and hearing discussions about the Great War. I am an American.
Thank you. Still Watching and Listening from Alaska. 🤔
Been reviewing the trajectory of these events with an eye towards some understanding of current events.
🤔
The question about why the Tory party was so hawkish in 1914 I don't think was probably explained here. It may seem surprising given Disraeli's/Salisbury's cautious isolationism that the Tory part was so keen for war, but in the bigger context it is not so much. Firstly it is worth bearing in my the Tories were always a broad church even in the late 19th century and there was also an aggressive expansionist and imperialist wing of the party, the kind of that pushed Disraeli and Salisbury into adventures in South Africa in the Zulu War and the two Boer Wars.
The second Boer war had, in the eyes of some Tories, discredited the Serisberian isolationist position - hence the move towards alliances with France, Japan and Russia. Joseph Chamberlain was a leading light in this - his imperial tariff reforms and proposals for imperial federation were specifically part of a policy of martial reinvigoration of the British empire. The feeling that Britain was weak and losing ground against its enemies - militarily and economically - was an all consuming preoccupation of the age, given British agriculture had been on its knees the the 1870s long depression and British industry was starting to become less competitive. The sheer numbers of people who were rejected after volunteering for the Second Boer War fed into the great fear that Britain's highly industrial society was ennervating the social and physical fabric of its manhood. The Liberals responded to this with a kind of proto-welfare state but the Conservatives were more inclined towards a dose of policies such as National Service - which was heavily promoted in this period and may have been implemented by a Conservative government if elected - and military preparation. The war was seen as a way to unite the empire, reinvigorate the martial qualities of its population in a baptism of fire and halt the decline against Germany and the US and of course unite a country against a common external foe when it looked as if it were about to tear itself apart over Ireland mere months before the war stated..
Most importantly was the state of paranoia among much of the respectable Tory press and backbenchers about German intentions. Britain has wearily accepted German unification but was never extremely thrilled about it. It was perhaps the most critical change to the balance of power since the settlement in Vienna in 1815 and had worried British statesmen intensely. Whilst work was done in the 1890s by the Tory government of the time to improve relations, ultimately this came to little, and a growing sense of paranoia about Germany's intentions took hold. The Tory press, such as the Daily Mail published many scare stories about possible German invasion plans. Germany's naval rearmament was seen in the worse and most fearful terms and much pressure was placed on the Liberal government to respond in kind. The abiding memories in 1914 were of German heavy handedness in the 1911 Agadir crisis which lead to the same people in both the Liberal and Tory parties then as in 1914 demanding a firmer stance against Germany. (See Lloyd George's Mansion House speech, or Churchill's decision to move warships to oil at this point.) The Tory party by this point had thoroughly convinced themselves that Germany was a threat that would have to be dealt with one way or another to insure the security of the realm. In the rancid political enviroment of the late 1900s and 1910s, the Liberal party was seen as being soft on Germany, perhaps best represented by the Germanophile Lord Chancellor Haldane.
The fact is, whether or not you regard Britain's entry into the war as a good thing or not, I don't think it was politically feasible for Asquith to avoid it one way or the other. The Tory party was in favour, as was half the Liberal party, and probably more after the invasion of Belgium. Even if Asquith had avoided pressure then, any peace treaty between France and Germany that led to the annexation of channel ports in Belgium would likely have proved intolerable to British politicians and pushed them into a war, given a large part of both the political elite and the population at large had become convinced that an assurgent and expanding Germany was a mortal threat to the survive of Britain and the British Empire. And if the war had not ended earlier the inevitable demands of Germany to Britain not to supply France and give up control of the channel and Atlantic coast for the duration of the war would likely have been considered a insult that could not be met with force. Prime Ministers of a far more reactionary and isolationist bent had been press-ganged by war fever and imperialist adventures before and there is no sense I think that Asquith could constitutionally or intellectually avoid the pressure for entry.
Keeping up appearances keeps one up to date, and the UK was up to date for war in 1939 because of choosing war in 1914, standing still is the dangerous policy, you cannot rely on theory, active involvement advantages - and supposing appeasement a dangerous policy in 1938 on this account is incorrect, because there was no war and the PM was actively involved in the crisis, so the UK involvement in 1914 was quite inevitable, and 1939 represented a consequence rather than any attempt to keep up appearances.
I wonder if the journey to WW1 could be made into a TV series farce ? It might be worth a go. Of course the dream casting for Kaiser Wilhelm would have been John Cleese who could have reprised his Basil Fawlty character. I also wish Britain and France had stayed out of WW1 and then after the dust settled the Kaiser could have written his autobiography ' Triumph of the Willy '.
24:40 “Fatalistic bellicosity” also describes the Japanese preparing to attack Pearl Harbor in 1941.
As I went through the podcast, I felt absolutely gutted and horrified.. How can a few sent millions to their slaughter knowing fully the consequences.. Also, many thanks to both the hosts for making history so raw...... As if happened last week. I am going to remember this podcast for a long time
its pretty grim. "lets send millions of men to die in a war because I gave a private promise to some ambassador and don't want to embarrass myself".
I have tried to listen to this podcast several times but it breaks my heart to know, despite (may be because of) the opportunities to the contrary, how it all ends.
Just FYI: The gunboat you mentioned at 31:20, the SMS Bodrog, was recently restored and is now parked just off Kalemegdan fortress. It survived WWI and was incorporated into the Yugoslav royal navy as the Sava. During the Nazi occupation in WWII, it was used by the Croatian navy and was returned to the Yugo military in ‘45. In the late 1950s, it was demilitarized and then used for decades as a river barge. A decade ago it underwent a total renovation, and is now a museum ship in Belgrade.
Apocryphal story - In the 1930s the Asquiths attended a party in London attended by the rich & famous. The actress Jean Harlow was there and kept calling Margot MarGOT. Eventually she'd had enough, and told Harlow - "No dear. The 't' is silent, as in Harlow!"
These videos are too good.
I am listening to your intro now. The quote from cousin William is funny but please use stronger consonants and drop pr accents when trying German 😂😂😂❤❤❤
Fascinating to learn that von Moltke was a Christian Scientist. I only mention this because at the outbreak of WW2 the C-In-C RAF Bomber Command, Ludlow-Hewitt, was also a Christian Scientist. Two very senior military commanders each a member of a minor Christian following.
Anglo-American Israelites are very influential too ;-(
Christian Science is one of the very few religious movements/sects if you will founded by a woman -Mary Baker Eddy.
Really hoping this world war 1 topic continues. Obviously getting knee deep into battles is a bit much but would love to hear more about the treaty of versailles and Brest litovsk and some of the diplomatic undercurrents of this diplomatic cast of characters reaction to some of the events of the war!
I find the accounts of ambassadors and politicians and their spouses sobbing over the descent into war ... extremely moving. What a tragedy that War was.
The alternative history of a WW1 without France and Britain participating is fascinating.
We let ourselves get sucked in by France. Look at what they are doing to us now . We are paying them millons to stop the small boats. France is the real enemy
Instead of The Great War or World War 1, it'll be the Russo-German War of 1914.
The bickering over Chatham High Street is wetting my appetite for this blockbuster podcast.(Did the Kaiser ever visit?)
whetting
@@billythedog-309 correct.my bad.
Magisterial. Lots of issues raised but the one that intrigues me was the issue of Belgian neutrality. During the Franco-Prussian War Britain had taken quite a strong position in that if France attacked Belgium, Britain would align itself with Prussia in defending Belgian neutrality and if Prussia attacked Belgium Britain would align itself with France in protecting Belgian neutrality (Richard Shannon, Vol 2 Gladstone, p.88). The precedent had been set as regards Belgian sovereignty, and by a Liberal government as well, so why would things be so different in the August of 1914?
Stakes are much higher in 1914
I don’t disagree but the point I was trying to make was that Britain had stood by Belgium once before, and in living memory. So why was such a possibility either discounted or from what we know, not even discussed in the planning of 1914?
@ because the stakes are much higher. Plus we aren’t really talking about Belgium at this point, more whether France will be attacked. They don’t yet know that Germany will invade Belgium.
Possibly. But the possibility cannot have been discounted. With uncanny accuracy Churchill had predicted the line of the German attack back in 1912 along with the point where the attack would run out of steam. His timescale was out by about 48 hours.
Even as a total Balkan commie (with a little podcast of my own), this is my favourite podcast by far. Kudos gentlemen!
That Villy accent was lol
Willy/Wilhelm
Thank you, again. Watching from Alaska. 🤔
Hard to consider this train wreck.
💔
The Great War effects us even to this day
Brilliant episode.
I love these guys together, it is just hilarious
These episodes feel too good to be real..and free
You guys are amazing
As an American studying European history I never understood why WWI was fought. It never made any sense to me. You make it understandable.
What about the professional backstabbers? Italy... They unified their nation by losing every war of independence but always had a lucky alliance with someone who gave them land, they had an alliance during the WW1 and betrayed them, joined the war against Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire and gained more land at the end of the war and during the WW2 they changed sides like nothing and at the end of the war they were given more land.... impressive! Machiavellian.
They never had any alliance with Austria and had no obligation to them. That is not "backstabbing". Do try to be less ignorant.
@theskycavedin wow that triggered you so much..... hehe just showed us who is the ignorant.
Brilliant series! I would LOVE a show discussing the "knock on effects" (you Brits are rubbing off on me) of WWI. It is routinely asserted as fact that WW2 was a direct consequence of WWI, but I'd love to hear a discussion detailing how this is true. It seems to be treated as a simple article of faith.
That cut when you mentioned Mr Toad, what do you guys say! Love the series
Could never understand why Germans thought French would surrender even if Schlieffan plan was successful even though France wouldn't give in in 1870 when their armies were all crushed.
Well, it did work out for them 26 years later
The attempts at accents on this show is like a party where the Dead Ringers cast gets drunk.
I'm not sure I even know what Chatham high street is (sort of the main street of some English town?) but my interest is more and more piqued with every mention and I would definitely watch it.
It's one of the Medway towns, the major tributary to the Thames, and the site of Britain's oldest naval dockyard.
Effective international relations depend on clarity. Kissinger taught history at Harvard and travelled everywhere to speak to world leaders. He changed American policy on Taiwan after speaking to Zhou Enlai in China. To build a rapport, he accompanied Foreign Secretary Tony Crosland to watch Grimsby play football (Crosland was the local MP). Nobody knew what Britain would do in 1914, it was a mystery. Grey could not speak a foreign language and would not travel. He conducted his diplomacy through a German ambassador ignored by Berlin and a French ambassador who could not speak English. He was indolent and a terrible foreign secretary. Salisbury regarded his job as avoiding conflict with other great powers. Grey failed.
An obvious solution to me was Britain declaring there would be arbitration and if one side didn’t turn up, it would join the other in the war. If neither showed up it would stay neutral. I feel this would have forced all parties to the negotiating table. Could someone explain why this plan either doesn’t work or why the British wouldn’t implement it? I know there must be a reason it isn’t feasible as it was never suggested in the video and it came to me immediately
You know what this video feels like?
"Oh, what a bummer, Bob. Such a terrible faceplant in front of the whole world! What went wrong?"
"Well, Jim, let's check the instant replay."
"Darn, Bob, it looks like he didn't make it that time either."
Brilliant!
The conclusion I draw from this discussion is that the war which, in the minds of practically everyone, eternally discredited monarchs and brought on the golden age of bureaucrats and civil servants, was in fact caused by those very same bureaucrats and civil servants against the express wishes of their monarchs. 🤔
It's more complex than that.
Turns out popular history is radically different from the truth. Next subject, a 6 hour look at how WW2 began.
These formats are great because most people have only been educated by the 'documentaries' that literally spend about 2 minutes on how these wars start, and swiftly move onto "Germany invades Belgium" or something.
@@AFGuidesHDat least 5hrs of which are required to explain the complex nature of the UK pre-war diplomacy, since the word appeasement was part of the complexity rather than explanatory
Hi from Palmerston Ontario! Have you ever thought of bringing your show to a small town named after the people’s prime minister?
Asking if ww1 was inevitable is not the question to ask. One should ask what took the countries. So long to fight?
Why they waited is the answer to find.
It would be marvelous if TRIH did a podcast on Alistair Crowley.
Poincaré and Churchill were not at all sleepwalkers, Poincaré was clearly the main responsible, as well as Sazonov and Isvolsky.
Thank you!
Just a point about France although it had been England's rival for centuries this wasn't the case for Scotland. There was a sort of "dual nationality" which only possibly ended in 1906. In fact in 1942 De Gaulle called the Auld Alliance the oldest in the world.
An alliance where nearly all the advantage was to France.
@billythedog-309 acknowledged by De Gaulle "In every combat where for five centuries the destiny of France was at stake, there were always men of Scotland to fight side by side with men of France, and what Frenchmen feel is that no people has ever been more generous than yours with its friendship"
@@Wee_Langside Whenever the French were under pressure from the English they would call on Scotland to invade England - escapades that cost the Scots the capture of one King and the death of another.
@@billythedog-309I think you've under estimated the kings killed and captured by just sticking to the Auld Alliance. There are a few for example Malcolm III, James II, then James III died shortly after Sauchieburn so three successive kings killed in conflicts with the English. William the Lion held hostage after capture. It was a hazard for all Kings Of Scots either being killed or captured by the English from even before the Norman Conquest staying independent came at a high cost.
@@Wee_Langside Yes, but the ones you mention didn't die as a direct result of the Scots coming to the aid of the French under the Auld Alliance.
As an American millennial, I feel some kinship with the Kaiser. I think your comparison to the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 feels like a good analogy. I was 20 when the towers were hit and it just felt inevitable (at the time) that we had to take out Bin Laden and anybody who defended him. Maybe history will view it differently, but that’s how it felt at the time. I suspect a monarch being killed by a terrorist feels akin to 3000 citizens being killed by terrorists.
Good to hear that there is at least one political leader with the name Keir that's against war.
They're not saying anything I don't know...but I love the way they're saying it.
Visiting the zoo was not that odd for Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon (1862-1933) who was well known as an ornithologist and author who wrote The Charm of Birds.
The French were to paranoid about German superiority in population, industrial output, military capacity etc. to allow Germany to defeat Russia while France remained neutral. Had that happened the French would have had to face a much strengthened Germany able to focus solely on their western front.
there's something if a Dr Strangelove feel to the Nikki and Willie exchanges
Sariyavo series? Where can I here that one?
When you got Freud's mojo on your side, does anything else really matter?
I am finding this episode very interesting and heartbreaking. To think WW1 could have been avoided, if Monarchs had the power back then we all think they had 😢
I don't buy that argument, Nicholas still had final say and he agreed. After that it couldn't be stopped. People just want to uphold the currently fashionable everyone is to blame view.
It's a story no one would believe unless it happened
Dominic does a fine Churchill voice.
I have never heard such a great storytelling about historic event. I'm absolutely stunned by how fascinating this story is. A specially becouse as a polish I always knew version of the outbreak of WW1 from school, it was like: "Imbreded semi retarded imperators started fighting with each other, so we finally could rebuild our county on the ruins of their dump empires" xP