Just discovered your channel and really enjoying it. Question - Could you expand on how Nationalism destroyed the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires? Would love more detail on how that came about
The Kaiser was a fan of Admiral A. T. Mahan, (USN), the author of two books on Naval Strategy in the late 19th century. This led to his wanting to build up the German Imperial Navy.
In my opinion, let’s face it, the understanding of human history is through the lens of opinion. History should be judged keeping in mind the historical understanding of human social norms, customs, technology, scientific understanding, and laws. To judge history by our norms is arrogant and ignorant, and to believe we today are morally superior to past societies is a myopic and self-righteous point of view. All peoples have blood on their hands, and all societies have accomplished great things and evil things. It’s part of the human condition. Get over and move on.
Totally agree! Bias is almost unavoidable, although as a teacher I have a civic duty to be as objective as possible and allow students to develop their own opinions based on sound research and critical writing.
Striking a balance is difficult, especially for professional historians and avid students alike. I think, and this is my opinion, what really counts is a passion for the subject, and a humility that we really don't have all the data let alone the answers. On the other hand, it's asking the questions that give a deeper understanding of the subject. Certainly, one must be wary of applying contemperary values on the people's of the past. In that regard what will future generations think of us one hundred or two hundred years into the future. My favorite line from Star Trek is Dr McCoy declaring, 'Twentieth Century Medicine! How barbaric.' As for Tolman's treatment of the origins of WWI, his intro is pretty standard stuff, but when you dig deeper, this topic is rich in human folly, heroism and agoniziing struggle. And the poetry from the trenches is worth reading. take care rwmccoy
I'm not so sure that the assumption that judging historical events and actions by current understanding and ethical conventions is neither particularly arrogant nor ignorant, and I do believe we can be deemed "morally superior" although I'd personally call it morally developed. Much as with technology, society develops and evolves, as much as we can claim that we are more scientifically apt and developed. the same goes for society, as history progresses things that might have seemed acceptable, reasonable or even righteous at one point will change. Will we be seen as uncivilised and socially undeveloped in comparison to our future society? I would hope so, if human progress doesn't suddenly stagnate and die of, which I certainly wouldn't hope for. There is a distinction to be made between the morality and merit of an action and a person however, as great people can do awful things. As to whether that's as a lack of essential knowledge or consious neglect doesn't really change the act in question, even if it reflects differently on the person. You can condemn historical events and actions from the viewpoint of our concurrent moral ideals and customs without condemning the perpetrators in question. Now, you can of course precent everything entirely objectively as well, which I think is a good starting point, but to elaborate and expand oupon our understanding by viewing and analysing it through different filters is ultimately a enriching practice.
I am a first time viewer. I am only a third through the podcast. I am delighted to find you. I have MUCH to learn about history!! Yet I would like to opine it is a bit slow or slightly remedial at the start. Who is your audience? It is still DEFINITELY WORTHWHILE.
These are intended for high school students and students learning about these topics for the first time. They were designed for my students during quarantine but I'm pleased that other people see value in them!
31:20 You're kinda wrong there. The war was started by France declaring war on Prussia simply over something as small as a false insulting telegram. France was also the first to attack.
The EMS Telegram. Bismarck did some editing to make it more insulting and the strategy worked when France declared war. I know this and will have a look. Thanks for watching
@@erictolmanshistorylectures90 If the French were stupid enough to declare war over something as small as an insulting telegram, then it really shows how much France and Napoleon III really wanted war (not that the Prussians and Bismarck were any saints in goading the French). The first offensive in this war was the French capture of the German city of Saarbrücken en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saarbr%C3%BCcken
@@paulyb7267 The French attack on Prussia was a "Preventive War" to avoid the potential alliance of German states. France feared becoming overpowered by a united Germany which Bismarck aimed for and was rapidly achieving. The Ems Telegramm was just a welcome excuse. It wasn't the reason to send hundreds of thousands to their deaths. Paris hoped that war would split up a "greater Germany" alliance before it came into effect, since Paris still had good relation to the Kingdoms of Bavaria and Baden. Bismarck said "Preventive war is like committing suicide because of the fear of death". France "feared death" from a united Germany, and "committed suicide" by attacking this future potential threat.
I wonder what your opinion is on underlying causes of WW1, you listed the typical main argument, but what about the less obvious ones? For example, it can be argued that had the British not got so involved in the lead up to July 1914, or had been clearer in their position a WORLD war would not have broken out. Let me expand, I believe it was somewhat inevitable that a localised war in the Balkans and potentially encapsulating the European continent would have likely occured in 1914, however, it was Britain's involvement that exacerbated the issue. I see several reassons for this: First, if Britain had not backed France so robustly, France may have been more inclined to go down a path of negotiation. Secondly, there is clear evidence to suggest that in the run up to 1914 there was mixed messages from the British Government to the Germans, some implying they would support France and others implying that they would remain neutral. Therefore, Germany had some expectation it would not have to fight a war with Britain and therefore was happy to engage in a war with France and some believed Britain would not have got involved... Lastly, the simple involvement of Britain is what turned a European war into a World War. Without Britain you only have European powers fighting (granted France and Germany had colonies but this wasn't extensive), but by involving Britain the war expands to all corners of the world. Furthermore, Britain prolongs a war against Germany costing many more lives and striving into the theoretical here, for what? Germany is the dominant power in Europe today, therefore would things really be that different if Britain hadn't got involved, Germany has come out on top either way, the only cost has been many more lives? Interested to have your take (or anyone else's) on this?
I think it was always about the oil fields in the Middle East & who controls them . Sykes Picot agreement .... The Balfour Declaration was the sealer & the reason all the Nazis didn’t like Jews .
@@jameshodgkins559 I disagree there is any strong tie between the Nazi hatred of Jews and a mandate which primarily affected a past State of the Ottoman Empire. I can’t see any correlation. Rational?
@@misssamartypants , what was the reason then … The Belfour agreement helped speed the surrender up no doubt. Think about it if you was Jewish & living in Germany during WW1 & the side you was fighting against offers you a promised land , all of a sudden you would change sides. People don’t like it but that is what happened just over 100 years ago
*The real "WW1", or first "great" war actually took place from 1803 to 1815.* In terms of scope and victims, it was mainly limited by technology. Still, despite the limited capabilities of the weapons of the times, there were more than 4 million victims, in all corners of the globe. The first truly "global war". Notice however how historians (correctly btw) separate this "first global war" (aka The Napoleonic Wars) into seven distinct phases, based on a scientific and exact analyses of the reasons/motivations at the time, whereas for WW1/WW2 there are attempts to create one big emotionally steered mashup. Regarding the Napoleonic Wars, historians are of course far more candid re. "motivations/reasons" (note: the real reasons, not the ancillary details). Most people are entirely emotionally detached from events 200 years ago, so there is also no need to spin history either to appease an own population. *There are no endless debates about "Who started it?"* The Napolionic Wars were of course declared by London, as a preventive war, in May 1803, and the (correct) reason/motivation given for this declaration of war, by most historians, is that it was to "avoid the single hegemony" on the continent. In 1914, "WW1" evolved out of a local conflict, which started in the Balkans, and through a few unfortunate twists and turns developed into the second truly "world" war, in order to establish domination and rule. Hanlon's Razor states "not to attribute to mallice, what can adequately be explained by stupidity", and with WW1, Europe started its own demise because of efforts to remain individually dominant/relevant. *Of course, on the other side of the Atlantic, wars were always fought for unity, and common goals (aim of expansion).* The American Century was a ship already launched, but renamed halfway. The "ship" started its journey with a war of unity (Civil War because of "poor slaves" aka "the emotional argument"), then expanding westwards (Manifest Destiny, Mexican-American War), getting rid of entities which could be misused by foreign powers to "divide and rule" ("Trails of Tears" of the unfortunate "losers" of history), and the consolidation of own strength (Monroe Doctrine/Spanish-American War). *And with that, the "ship" bumped up against the "dock", which was European rule and domination of the globe.* Didn't *anybody* notice?
I totally agree: 1803-1815 was the real first WW. Than we have the second (1914) and third (1939) ones. So what we have is a secquence of events from the French Revolution onwards.
Thanks :interesting lecture Was this war really about our freedom in the west? ie. As celebrated annually on armistice day :'lest we forget' where Germany, Austria - Hungary =Evil and Britain, France etc =good guys. Or was Germany a victim of the bully boys for daring to increase its economic influence? My analysis is that the victims were poor young men of both sides forced to kill their cousins over the border for sake of the squabbles and ambitions of Richer men from both sides.
So Britain just had gun power and had no buy in from locals? You also forget your own country's 'colonial mindset' and 'arrogance' re Cuba, Phillipines which is why Kipling wrote of the white man's burden - it was addressed to America. I understand this is just an overview but not drawing distinction between different Empires as if they're all the same leads you into ridiculous positions like comparing the spread of British civilisation to Nazism.
I just wrote my comment and scrolled down to see yours. Totally agree. As I put it: The idea that colonialism is something that America has not performed but points at the European powers with false virtue signalling is laughable. America's wars against Mexico and the Spanish. The domination of Hawaii and the Pacific Islands, Phillipines, Costa Rica, Cuba, and the Indian territories. The idea that American aggression towards all the aforementioned plus other American States that disagreed with the outlook of Washington DC [the Confederate States of America) means that America is just as culpable to the hubris of the pre-1914 European Powers. Expansionism leads to wars. Falling Empires lead to wars. When the American Empire collapses as all have done before it, we can expect to see opportunism and conflict sprout up around the globe.
Excellent. I studied the causes of WW1 when 14 at secondary school but never in such depth. I look forward to part 2.
Glad to hear! If you watch my lectures in order you would go to World War 1 Part 1. Enjoy!
Just discovered your channel and really enjoying it.
Question - Could you expand on how Nationalism destroyed the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires? Would love more detail on how that came about
This is an excellent lecture! Easy to follow and I have learnt so much!
Great to hear- keeping things simple and straight forward is my goal!
The Kaiser was a fan of Admiral A. T. Mahan, (USN), the author of two books on Naval Strategy in the late 19th century. This led to his wanting to build up the German Imperial Navy.
I think everyone was including the Brits and Teddy Roosevelt.
In my opinion, let’s face it, the understanding of human history is through the lens of opinion. History should be judged keeping in mind the historical understanding of human social norms, customs, technology, scientific understanding, and laws. To judge history by our norms is arrogant and ignorant, and to believe we today are morally superior to past societies is a myopic and self-righteous point of view. All peoples have blood on their hands, and all societies have accomplished great things and evil things. It’s part of the human condition. Get over and move on.
Totally agree! Bias is almost unavoidable, although as a teacher I have a civic duty to be as objective as possible and allow students to develop their own opinions based on sound research and critical writing.
Striking a balance is difficult, especially for professional historians and avid students alike. I think, and this is my opinion, what really counts is a passion for the subject, and a humility that we really don't have all the data let alone the answers. On the other hand, it's asking the questions that give a deeper understanding of the subject. Certainly, one must be wary of applying contemperary values on the people's of the past. In that regard what will future generations think of us one hundred or two hundred years into the future. My favorite line from Star Trek is Dr McCoy declaring, 'Twentieth Century Medicine! How barbaric.' As for Tolman's treatment of the origins of WWI, his intro is pretty standard stuff, but when you dig deeper, this topic is rich in human folly, heroism and agoniziing struggle. And the poetry from the trenches is worth reading.
take care
rwmccoy
I'm not so sure that the assumption that judging historical events and actions by current understanding and ethical conventions is neither particularly arrogant nor ignorant, and I do believe we can be deemed "morally superior" although I'd personally call it morally developed.
Much as with technology, society develops and evolves, as much as we can claim that we are more scientifically apt and developed. the same goes for society, as history progresses things that might have seemed acceptable, reasonable or even righteous at one point will change.
Will we be seen as uncivilised and socially undeveloped in comparison to our future society? I would hope so, if human progress doesn't suddenly stagnate and die of, which I certainly wouldn't hope for.
There is a distinction to be made between the morality and merit of an action and a person however, as great people can do awful things. As to whether that's as a lack of essential knowledge or consious neglect doesn't really change the act in question, even if it reflects differently on the person. You can condemn historical events and actions from the viewpoint of our concurrent moral ideals and customs without condemning the perpetrators in question.
Now, you can of course precent everything entirely objectively as well, which I think is a good starting point, but to elaborate and expand oupon our understanding by viewing and analysing it through different filters is ultimately a enriching practice.
I am a first time viewer. I am only a third through the podcast. I am delighted to find you. I have MUCH to learn about history!! Yet I would like to opine it is a bit slow or slightly remedial at the start. Who is your audience? It is still DEFINITELY WORTHWHILE.
These are intended for high school students and students learning about these topics for the first time. They were designed for my students during quarantine but I'm pleased that other people see value in them!
Epic
31:20 You're kinda wrong there. The war was started by France declaring war on Prussia simply over something as small as a false insulting telegram. France was also the first to attack.
The EMS Telegram. Bismarck did some editing to make it more insulting and the strategy worked when France declared war. I know this and will have a look. Thanks for watching
@@erictolmanshistorylectures90 If the French were stupid enough to declare war over something as small as an insulting telegram, then it really shows how much France and Napoleon III really wanted war (not that the Prussians and Bismarck were any saints in goading the French). The first offensive in this war was the French capture of the German city of Saarbrücken en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saarbr%C3%BCcken
@@paulyb7267 The French attack on Prussia was a "Preventive War" to avoid the potential alliance of German states.
France feared becoming overpowered by a united Germany which Bismarck aimed for and was rapidly achieving.
The Ems Telegramm was just a welcome excuse.
It wasn't the reason to send hundreds of thousands to their deaths.
Paris hoped that war would split up a "greater Germany" alliance before it came into effect, since Paris still had good relation to the Kingdoms of Bavaria and Baden.
Bismarck said "Preventive war is like committing suicide because of the fear of death".
France "feared death" from a united Germany, and "committed suicide" by attacking this future potential threat.
Thank you!
Excellent lecture
I wonder what your opinion is on underlying causes of WW1, you listed the typical main argument, but what about the less obvious ones? For example, it can be argued that had the British not got so involved in the lead up to July 1914, or had been clearer in their position a WORLD war would not have broken out.
Let me expand, I believe it was somewhat inevitable that a localised war in the Balkans and potentially encapsulating the European continent would have likely occured in 1914, however, it was Britain's involvement that exacerbated the issue. I see several reassons for this:
First, if Britain had not backed France so robustly, France may have been more inclined to go down a path of negotiation.
Secondly, there is clear evidence to suggest that in the run up to 1914 there was mixed messages from the British Government to the Germans, some implying they would support France and others implying that they would remain neutral. Therefore, Germany had some expectation it would not have to fight a war with Britain and therefore was happy to engage in a war with France and some believed Britain would not have got involved...
Lastly, the simple involvement of Britain is what turned a European war into a World War. Without Britain you only have European powers fighting (granted France and Germany had colonies but this wasn't extensive), but by involving Britain the war expands to all corners of the world. Furthermore, Britain prolongs a war against Germany costing many more lives and striving into the theoretical here, for what? Germany is the dominant power in Europe today, therefore would things really be that different if Britain hadn't got involved, Germany has come out on top either way, the only cost has been many more lives?
Interested to have your take (or anyone else's) on this?
I think it was always about the oil fields in the Middle East & who controls them .
Sykes Picot agreement ....
The Balfour Declaration was the sealer & the reason all the Nazis didn’t like Jews .
@@jameshodgkins559 I disagree there is any strong tie between the Nazi hatred of Jews and a mandate which primarily affected a past State of the Ottoman Empire. I can’t see any correlation. Rational?
@@misssamartypants , what was the reason then …
The Belfour agreement helped speed the surrender up no doubt.
Think about it if you was Jewish & living in Germany during WW1 & the side you was fighting against offers you a promised land , all of a sudden you would change sides.
People don’t like it but that is what happened just over 100 years ago
*Balfour Declaration, not agreement.
*The real "WW1", or first "great" war actually took place from 1803 to 1815.*
In terms of scope and victims, it was mainly limited by technology. Still, despite the limited capabilities of the weapons of the times, there were more than 4 million victims, in all corners of the globe.
The first truly "global war".
Notice however how historians (correctly btw) separate this "first global war" (aka The Napoleonic Wars) into seven distinct phases, based on a scientific and exact analyses of the reasons/motivations at the time, whereas for WW1/WW2 there are attempts to create one big emotionally steered mashup.
Regarding the Napoleonic Wars, historians are of course far more candid re. "motivations/reasons" (note: the real reasons, not the ancillary details). Most people are entirely emotionally detached from events 200 years ago, so there is also no need to spin history either to appease an own population.
*There are no endless debates about "Who started it?"*
The Napolionic Wars were of course declared by London, as a preventive war, in May 1803, and the (correct) reason/motivation given for this declaration of war, by most historians, is that it was to "avoid the single hegemony" on the continent.
In 1914, "WW1" evolved out of a local conflict, which started in the Balkans, and through a few unfortunate twists and turns developed into the second truly "world" war, in order to establish domination and rule.
Hanlon's Razor states "not to attribute to mallice, what can adequately be explained by stupidity", and with WW1, Europe started its own demise because of efforts to remain individually dominant/relevant.
*Of course, on the other side of the Atlantic, wars were always fought for unity, and common goals (aim of expansion).*
The American Century was a ship already launched, but renamed halfway.
The "ship" started its journey with a war of unity (Civil War because of "poor slaves" aka "the emotional argument"), then expanding westwards (Manifest Destiny, Mexican-American War), getting rid of entities which could be misused by foreign powers to "divide and rule" ("Trails of Tears" of the unfortunate "losers" of history), and the consolidation of own strength (Monroe Doctrine/Spanish-American War).
*And with that, the "ship" bumped up against the "dock", which was European rule and domination of the globe.*
Didn't *anybody* notice?
I totally agree: 1803-1815 was the real first WW. Than we have the second (1914) and third (1939) ones. So what we have is a secquence of events from the French Revolution onwards.
Thanks :interesting lecture
Was this war really about our freedom in the west? ie. As celebrated annually on armistice day :'lest we forget' where Germany, Austria - Hungary =Evil and Britain, France etc =good guys. Or was Germany a victim of the bully boys for daring to increase its economic influence?
My analysis is that the victims were poor young men of both sides forced to kill their cousins over the border for sake of the squabbles and ambitions of Richer men from both sides.
Increasing economic influence is one thing but when you do it at the expense of others that's quite another
Actually to make it more simple, WWI started out of egotism and WWII started out of pure evil.
Yes!
If you don't mention economics, profit and capitalism....you will never understand modern warfare...
fantastic video! How am I just finding you?!?!?!
So Britain just had gun power and had no buy in from locals? You also forget your own country's 'colonial mindset' and 'arrogance' re Cuba, Phillipines which is why Kipling wrote of the white man's burden - it was addressed to America. I understand this is just an overview but not drawing distinction between different Empires as if they're all the same leads you into ridiculous positions like comparing the spread of British civilisation to Nazism.
I just wrote my comment and scrolled down to see yours. Totally agree. As I put it: The idea that colonialism is something that America has not performed but points at the European powers with false virtue signalling is laughable. America's wars against Mexico and the Spanish. The domination of Hawaii and the Pacific Islands, Phillipines, Costa Rica, Cuba, and the Indian territories. The idea that American aggression towards all the aforementioned plus other American States that disagreed with the outlook of Washington DC [the Confederate States of America) means that America is just as culpable to the hubris of the pre-1914 European Powers. Expansionism leads to wars. Falling Empires lead to wars. When the American Empire collapses as all have done before it, we can expect to see opportunism and conflict sprout up around the globe.
He does happen to not BE American, though
can someone help me out and tell me what the main cause of ww2 was?
you mean ww1
tegan go to 5:00 in the video
I thought it was called pickelhaube...
It is - a verbal slip on my German! I hope you enjoyed the rest!