von bulow humiliates isvolsky
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 жов 2024
- a bit of background: the russian foreign minister Baron Isvolsky had given clandestine assurances to the the austrian foreign minister - Count Areunthal - that russia would not oppose the Austrian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovinia in 1908, on the condition that Austria support a russian plan to force turkey to open the dardenelles. This would only happen if enough international pressure was brought to bear on turkey thru a conference of all the european powers. The major powers, however would only agree to meet if there were a crisis to resolve. Isvolsky thought the Austrian annexation would be just the crisis needed to bring this about, but because he had already given russia's tacit consent the austrians were able to present it to the other powers as a fait accompli; therefore no crisis.
much more interesting than game of thrones
Not enough gratuitous nudity.
@@Infernal460
lol, i dont want to see a gay sex scene between these two:
isvolsky: "are you threatening us?"
von bulow: "only if you don't get naked immediately"
Funny you should mention Game Of Thrones: after this disgrace Isvolsky quit the foreign office, went to the wall and joined the Night's Watch. There, due to his education, he served as maester and took the name Aemon.
@@anastasiosgkotzamanis5277
yes!
jon snow: "you are AEMON targaryen?!"
him: "um no... i was actually a Russian dipolmat"
@@therearenoshortcuts9868 HAHAHA!
This excellent drama series , still is magnificent, even when I watched it when it was first televised. Excellent acting, , anything with Peter Vaughn is quality acting , even watching Ed Deveraux ( Australian actor , best remember for Skippy) who is only in this one scene for just under 5 minutes, i wish the BBC produced, High class costume drama , like this today , thank you for sharing, yours sincerely Grahame
Honour and reputations were at stake when men ruled absent emotions.
The Bosnian crisis 1908-1909. A world war averted but only just. Five years later things would not work out so.
I love it when the British play Germans and Russians!
Almost as funny as when they try to play French.
@@drcurv PICARD....
@@therearenoshortcuts9868 Well he played an Italian so...
This is not von Bulow. The scene involves the German ambassador to Russia Count von Pourtales who in various books comes across as someone who worked for a peaceful solution prior to the Guns of August. Alas Pourtales's efforts did not work out.
Thank you ! I was wondering what the ... Greetings - HUSSAARRRR !
lol … 'That is our decision. That is our final word'. And THAT is telling him!
i thought he said it was NOT an ultimatum
lolol
The final word is in fact that Germany did push for a war that destroyed its monarchy along with Austria's and Russia's, killed millions, sparked brutal revolutions that were to scourge the world for the next century, enriched a United States that did not yet accept its duty to remain involved in international affairs and agreements, ...
Von Bülow was more prophetic than he realised.
yes yes, but that's just in hindsight. Germany wanted a war because it thought it would prevail. It had beaten France easily a few decades before and was certain it could do so again. It was convinced it's army was invincible.
Actually, Czarist Russia is much more to blame for the start of WW1 than germany, and they didi it for the very same thing isvolsky was trying to get here: the Straits.
@@Nuno.dos.Santos491 there isn't much proof to support this idea: first and foremost Russia felt hound, in the face of nationsl outrage and international humiliation, to support Serbia. Austria drew up an ultimatum that was impossible for any sovereign nation to accept and remain independent. Serbia accepted all but one of the conditions. Austria wouldn't bend and Germsny egged on Austrus. When Kaiser Wilhelm tried to grow back it was too late. Russian mobilisation went much quicker than expected. Germany decided to use the Schlieffen Plan, despite the risk of drawing the UK into the war. So Germany had to fight on two fronts and managed to strengthen her opponents by causing the UK to enter the war, then the USA. Her own allies were weak and Germany was required to devote massive resources to help them. Even the gamble of knocking Russia out of the war by fomenting revolution turned out bad for Germany because a) huge resources were tied up in trying to manage the vast territories Germany gained and b) the revolution came to Germany and destroyed the old regime.
@@spencersfarm Those facts are all correct, everyone had its share of blame, my assumption is based on extra facts.
-First and foremost, Russia had no treaty obligations whatsoever to support Servia (no aliance, no garantees, etc), they did so to "keep their prestige as a great power".
- Austria's "agression" of Serbia was defensive. Serbia was a rogue state (the archduke's assassination was orquestraded by their intelligence service without the knowledge or aprovement of it's governmemt) and had no intention to conquer Serbia: one of the reasons they too so long in taking action is that the austrians needed permission from the hungarians to issue the ultimatum and the hungarian prime-minister, count Tisza only asserted on the condition that there would be no anexation of new territories: they already had plenty of minorities already.
-Russia mobilized firts, before even Austria or any other power. Only Servia started to mobilize before her.
-Russian secret diplomatic correspondence (that was made public by the comunist when they seized power) show the Russians inviting the bulgarians into the war, telling them to atack otoman turkey and occupy the straits for them, and in return they would be compensated with territory taken from Serbia: Yes, from the very state whose territorial integrity rthey were hostensibly going to war to protect. And this even before Turkey was in the war.
-Germany did gave Austria the famous "blank Check" to deal with Servia, but France did also gave guarantees to Russia that she would stand by her . The difference is Germany: " we back you up, even if this leads to a world war", France was "We back you up, and this will lead to a world war".
-As for Great Britain, they already had informal arrangements wih the french in how to act in case of war. Germany's invasion of Belgium in an atempt not to get bogged down on a two front war actually gave the british cabinet a public honorfull reason to go to war. In reality the german naval build up was the main reason. I mean as a naval enthusiast I love those ships but germany dropped the ball there, they should have never tried to challenge british naval supremacy.
-The russians got beaten at Tannenberg not because the germans took troops from the western front, and thus saved France (as Churchil later wrote) but because East Prussia was not a primary target, austrian galicia was: 2 armies atacked germany while 7 armies were devoted to the austrian front. During all of the war Russia led her own war, according to her interest: the dismantling of austria and anexing the straits, despite french urgings that "the road to viena passed by Berlin". The entire Gallipoli campaign was waged for her benefit, but she did not sacrifice one man. Western allies did it, because they feared Russia could make a separate peace and leave them in the lurch.
You can check all of this in a book called "The Russian Origins of the First World War " by Sean Mcmeekin, I highly recomend it, very enlighting.
What I mean is: czarist russia, with its autocratic government and a groing polititilized disfranchised proletariat had much more resons to embark on a foreign war to distract/postpone those issues, than prosperous, stable, first welfare state in the world Germany. The thing is, germany gets more blame than it deserves (a justification perhaps for the unfair way she was treated after, and that led to the rise of nazism?) while czaris Russia doesn't get as much as she should (maybe out of pity, because she did get destroyed in the process?).
If you bothered to read all of this, Thanks.
@@Nuno.dos.Santos491 have you ever heard of Pan-Slavism? It can loosely be compared to the German Nationalism if the 19th century and even more loosely to Hitler's "justification" for the Anschluss and the Sudetenland. Russia had been tricked by Austria on 1908, when Bosnia-Herzovina was annexed and Russia got nothing. Germany was ruled by a Kaiser who suffered from a serious inferiority complex and Austria by a tired and declining ruler of a ramshackle empire that was waiting to disintegrate. Russia's regime had been doomed for decades, perhaps since the crash of the Imperial Train and the early death of Alexander III.
Imagine if the Canadian government were to suppress Quebec, eradicating French culture and language. France would immediately react in the strongest terms, even though it lost Quebec almost 300 years ago, because of francophonie and because France never really came to terms with their defeat.
What is this from? Is it the Disraeli BBC mini series?
It's from "Fall of Eagles", a 1974 mini-series about the last 80 years of the Hapsburgs, Romanovs and Hohenzollerns.
I'm still disappointed that Disraeli couldn't find a way to stop the first world war.
@@acr08807 Disraeli was long dead by then.
Read the whole thread.
This is nonsense. Russia was not in position to go to war over the 1908. annexation of Bosnia by Austria-Hungary because they were exhausted by their 1905. defeat in the Russo-Japanese War. A government policy is never a one man decision. Not even in absolute monarchies.
I don't think the acting is very good here.