The 4 M-A-I-N Causes of World War One in 6 Minutes
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 сер 2014
- Possibly the single most pondered question in history - what caused the unbound, senseless slaughter that was the First World War?
It wasn’t, like in World War Two, a case of a single belligerent pushing others to take a military stand. It didn’t have the moral vindication of a resisting a tyrant. Rather, a delicate but toxic balance of structural forces created a dry tinder that was lit by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. That event precipitated the July Crisis, which saw the major European powers hurtle toward open conflict.
0:50 Militarism
1:36 Alliances
2:27 Imperialism
3:30 Nationalism
you can thank me later.
(Edit). Thank you guys so much for the likes, and comments wasn’t expecting this at all you guys are all so amazing and may God bless your souls
Venom Skywalker THANK YOU SO MUCHHHHHHH
Erica Struble sane I needed it for that class too
Or I can thank you now.
GOD BLESS
not all heroes wear capes. ty :)
Summary...?
Militarism - everybody wanted to have the stronger military
Alliances - everybody wanted someone else supporting and backing then up in case of war
Imperialism - there was competition over colonies
Nationalism - everybody thought their country was the best
thank now i dont have to do work
THANK YOU
THANK YOU!!
Thank you comrade
YOURE A GOAT !!!!
Hello students from schools all around
Some random Cat hello from the Philippines 🇵🇭
it feels bad man they blocked the comments at school
Hello, From the South East coast of North America
Hi :)
Hi
Who else is watching this because due to the Corona Outbreak you have online school....
Update 2023: Who else is watching this because you have to 💀
Me
me bruh
My teacher just assigned it 😔
Hi🥴😔
hahahah fr bro.
I've watched this video 6 times and I still don't understand it sos
same T^T idk how im supposed to do an assignment on this
meredith gray 3 lol same I’m dumb
do these assignments earlier in the day, you have better memory, and your brain functions better.
meredith gray the only good comment in this entire section thank you
Ikr
_Also the sequence of events:_
*_A_* ustria declared war on Serbia
*_R_* ussia mobilized her army
*_S_* chlieffen Plan
*_E_* xpeditionary Force sent by Britain
Hey guys I’m
B-BLAH BLAH BLAH
O-OH MY GOD IM GOING TO DIE
R-Raaa I’m committing suicide
E-eek I’d rather fail
D-dead
Russia mobilized before war was declared tho. They sorta pre mobilized.
@@princeaguada8232 shut up.
🤣🤣🤣😪 LOL
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😭 LOL
People giving information in the comment section pass the vibe check
militarism: the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests
- everyone wanted to have a stronger military
- The British had the best naval militia
- The Germans were competing with the British to have the best naval militia
alliances: a union or association formed for mutual benefit, especially between countries or organizations
- everyone wanted someone else supporting them and backing them up in case of a war
imperialism: a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force
- there was competition over the colonies
nationalism: identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations
- everyone thought their country was better than the others
Thank you so much for this
absolute fucking unit saving me so much time on my history hw
Goated
thanks for helping me with my history hw
Thank you so much I have an essay to write worth 55% of my grade and it's a test grade so it helps kr worsens my grade a lot more and this helps a lot
Who's watching cause of online school?
yuh
Abeer Shahin the movie 1917 brought me here.
Uhhh me
Abeer Shahin me
Me
Militarism - when countries race to build up their armies, navies, weapons and strategies to defend against attack or to attack others.
Imperialism - when countries try to build larger empire by conquering other countries.
Ideology - a set of beliefs that may determine the way a country is run and the way the people are allowed to live.
Alliances - the agreements countries make to be friends and support each other.
Nationalism - when one country thinks its better than others and feels very patriotic (proud and loyal) to the country.
edit : holy- glad i could help u all. i literally just got this from my teachers ppt-
ily. now i dont have to watch 😭
@@ginamargaret2121 np lol
thank you
thank youuuuu
THANKS BRO U SAVED MY SEMESTER
That’s why I failed history , to this day I still don’t understand
@Dr Wolfgang Chausser what
All the places were like "i got better military" (M) and "you hurt one of us you hurt the rest of us" (A) and "hey i want that colony" (I) and "my nation is the best" (N) and all of the tension and whatever broke loose when Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated.
At least I think that's it i'm not entirely sure
i'm pretty dumb too
Instead of everyone commenting about online school i was hoping someone would comment the answers 💔
LMAOO XDDD
@@landonbrumbaugh8786 KbG7
M-militarisim A-Alliances I-imperialism N-nationalism
tbh
I didn’t understand anything that was said.
Hello children here becuase of Corona virus!!
check in
kqvre please shut up
@@bam9480 u shut up
Hello dear
@@bam9480 hello dear
if my history teacher is seeing this comment i would just like you to know that this video is going to be the reason for my death
ONG BRUH😭
I am so sorry Edward
- From Mrs Bumblybottoms
anyone else feel like they physically *cannot* focus or understand this shit : /
online school, man.
POV: You're watching this for social studies lol
world history
US history
World cultures actually
world history...
Curiosity bruh.
all y'all currently helping me with my world history homework/tests rn much love💞
How I wish I can get this in my brain word for word
Literally all of these comments are either related to online school due to Covid-19, or from people who had to watch this video within class.
cause who got bored and watched this 😂
The main thing I think we gained from this war was just the knowledge of how horrible modern war can be, and moving to try and curtail the really horrible things about war
I know you're not here for fun.
I am 😆
I just got 22 years, fuck goodbye
i an
id rather watch this video 200 times then listen to my teacher lecture
1200 minutes? yeah same
@@bryanalvarado5257 20 hours sm here
thanks for this useful video, you rock
Outstanding video. Seriously impressive from a technical standpoint!
So much better than the other summary videos I have seen. Retaining nuance and the possibility of multiple variables is vital to a correct understanding of anything. Other videos make it seem like an unbroken line of easy to explain cause and effect.
Thank you for this video!
Most people don't know how this war and other wars started, but if you listen to Benjamin H. Freedman speech , they would understand. Please listen his speech, . and shared it. It is.....Benjamin H. Freedman..... thank you.
Freedman was anti semitic--fair warning.
The Great War wasn't all for nothing, in my opinion. There were valuable, inevitable rules that modern civilization had to learn sooner or later:
1) War is not always good for nations
2) Imperialism can cause vulnerability rather than strength
3) Alliances and pacts can lead to disastrous consequences rather than prevent them
The world changed for the better after the war, indeed. To say that WW2 is proof that nothing was learned from WW1 is doing a disservice to everyone who suffered through that first nightmare. In truth, the lessons taken from WW1 were perhaps learned TOO well, leading to the continual appeasement of Hitler and the reluctance of capable nations to act sooner
I think the argument to counter what you are saying is simply that there were other ways to go about the situation that was WW1. Many of the wars were wars of attrition and being that, they were meaningless. The world could have learned the same lessons through punishment from the mandates from an organization like the League of Nations. It is to say that much of the casualties were only part of a plan that achieved primarily nothing. If there need be for such lessons that we MUST learn, it should have been at a smaller scale. If society were to have learned what you suggested, surely there would have been resistance to the rule of Hitler. And if there was, it was not powerful considering what they had just so recently witnessed. So to summarize, the CONS HEAVILY OUTWEIGH THE PROS. I would even go as far as to say that what we learned was meaningless in comparison to the losses that were obtained.
There would not have been a WW2, if the peace following WW1 had been less botched up.
as a general rule, the same reasons which lead to wars to become an option in the first place, also leads to the subsequent peace processes to become 'the winners justice', which (more or less) programs the next crises, which in turn, might lead to the next war.
What the heck am I reading I can’t understand
Nerds
could you explain point number 2?
just some checkpoints for me:
1:50 - the triple allies
2:20 - how allies started
Amazing video thank you!
amazing video, thank you.
I despise this unit with passion
I wish our future generations do not have to study world war 3 like we are studying the two wars....
If there is a world war 3 there won't be any future generations
@@1986tomdavies lmao, nah but fr tho that’s pretty sad and most likely the truth ._.
Bruh were writing an essay as our test today in world history and im doing it rn and this is helpng so much 😭
hayy baes i see everyone helping soo
EXAMPLES for each….
MILITARISM
The british had an obsession with their naval strength. Always putting more time and effort into it even though their navy was far more advanced than any other country.
ALLIANCES
During this time there were two different alliances. The triple alliance and the triple entente. These countries would support one another if one got into a war. This means 6 countries could be battling at once.
IMPERIALISM
Germany had imperialistic motives when invading France and Belgium. Imperialism also had Japan and Russia interact through their Chinese imperialistic rule.
NATIONALISM
The Balkans and nationalism, this clashed with Russia and their imperialistic actions to them.
Thank you!!!!
Tysmmm this helped me with my hw😭😭😭
Germany (Prussia) had imperialist motives in 1870, not so much in 1870. Their main motivation in 1914 was knowing the French wanted revenge for 1870 as well as the recovery of its lost provinces, Alsace-Lorraine, and also looking at demographic and economic trends in France and Russia and realizing that if those trends continued the Entente would reach a point where Germany couldn't hope to stand up to them - and its only ally, Austria-Hungary, was all but falling apart. In effect Germany went to war because its leaders feared a future war more than the present one.
The fatal step was wen Germany promised its full support for the harshest Austrian measures toward Serbia, knowing that Austria would never dare risk a war with Russia without German support and also knowing that an Austrian invasion of Serbia was sure to provoke a much larger war with Russia, and thus also with France.
Of all the M-A-I-N causes for WW1, three were basically a given factor, while only *one* could have been practically changed, to avoid the potential scenario of "a great (European) war".
Whilst militarism and imperialism were deep seated traditional "values" (lol) at the time, and the rather new appearance of nationalism were deeply entrenched beliefs, shared by a large percentage of all European states, the alliance system was flexible.
It could, and should have been changed.
Furthermore, few of the the leaders wanted to accept that colonialism/imperialism was an outdated model, that would need to deeply reformed in a changing world, with changing realities.
Instead of changing, they steamed *full speed ahead,* like the Titanic in a region of icebergs, tempting disaster, over confident of their own superiority.
0:50 Militarism
1:36 Alliances
2:27 Imperialism
3:30 Nationalism
THANK
@@dandion1879 he copied it from somone (top comment little boi)
@@dapperdan9470 oh yea just realized
Dude seriously stealing my comment
@@dapperdan9470 Thank you
As the up-loader himself says: the structural determinism of acronym is 'simplistic'. The actual nidus of the conflict is the Council of Ministers for the Dual Monarchy meeting, held on 7th July 1914, to discuss peace or war. The Council minutes read: "All present, except the Royal Hungarian Premier, hold the belief that a purely diplomatic success, even if it ended with a glaring humiliation of Serbia, would be worthless and that therefore such a stringent demand must be addressed to Serbia that will make refusal almost certain, so that the road to a radical solution by military means should be opened."
Who else from school
You know what's funny? We were just taught that the only reason WW1 started was because of some random guy being shot by a group of east europeans which doesn't evwn make sense. It was clearly a battle of world dominance
Sparked by that event, idiot.😂😂
what does any of this even mean
𝕀𝕕𝕜 𝕥𝕓𝕙
Means there was a big war and guns went brrrr and bombs went boom and people died, the end
I had no clue you can drag and move subtitles on pc
Excelente resumen
You don't need 4 minutes, all you need is two words.
Small hats.
LOL😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
THIS IS SO GREAT
ap world history gang wya
This war would never ocurred if the one important guy rather HID AFTER ALMOST BEING BLOWN UP OR NEVER MADE A WRONG TURN
There would have been some other incident. There had been many before, but the powers had not wanted to risk war on those occasions. By 1914 several of them, but most of all Germany and Austria-Hungary, had come to see war as being in their interest. Germany wanted to crush Russia before it industrialized to the point where Germany couldn't face both Russia and France (as indeed happened in the 1920s and 30s) and Austria-Hungary - really Austria, the Hungarians were not so keen on it - wanted a war as an excuse to crush Serbian nationalism and pan-Slavism. Britain didn't particularly want a war but its leaders knew that of war broke out they had to join to crush Germany's naval challenge, and when the Ottoman Empire joined Britain and France were only to happy to enlarge their empires at the Turks' expense.
can someone please explain what the heck is going on in the picture in 3:08
lilbroadwaystar 098 Basically he is a slave and the people are using him for money
@@ScytheXqt WRONG, obviously that guy is made from money and gold so they’re squishing it out of him
The people in the picture have the guy trapped in some sort of machine - the guy is intended to look like someone from Africa - and they are force-feeding him whiskey as a way to press money out of him. The picture is saying that people in Africa (the guy in the machine) are trapped by imperial forces (the people on the outside), and that the imperialists are abusing the Africans for money, treating them as a part of a factory.
The colonists are using vices to control them + stop them from resisting (using alcohol and drunkenness to make them easier to control); it could also be saying that the whiskey industry, specifically, is getting rich off of exploiting them. The fact it's a factory machine also relates to industrialism.
Excellent.
Ralph Bernhard yes
Wow. Thanks
I am using this for homework and it is so confusing. Any suggestions for websites that can explain this?
What is so confusing about it? care to specify?
Jess E You'll get to understand it once you know more about this.
Don't use this for homework, it's rubbish. I would suggest that you look at the history of the Prussians from 1815 onwards as a start. If you want to have a quick answer as to what caused the slaughter the answer is the industrialisation of warfare and the invention of the machine gun. Consider the photographs of the American Civil War and those of the Boer War in South Africa.
If you haven't done your homework yet, see my comments to Ben.
Jaylyn, I hope you discovered The Great War series hosted by Indy Neidell. Fantastico! And don't worry-- the Great War was confusing to all sides.
Who else thinks all the likes on this video is just all the teachers who have made all there students watch it
So true they probably got satisfaction from boring kids to death
Solid history commentary
Thank you
Who looks at the comments instead of paying attention to the video
Me: ummmmm I do ?
this is so complicated dad
Cheers, great video, helped a lot with my homework.
+FeOfTheElement XD Same.
Excellent 7 minute presentation.
It seems like many nations acted like a bunch of kids on a playground, in search of status and dominance. These were boys, with the budgets and weapons of a military. When we are young and we learn of these wars, we are taught we were justified, that we needed to protect innocent people. We are made to think our government is a superhero. But as adults when we learn more truth, it is plain to see none of this was done to help anyone but ourselves. We were no heros. I mean, if my government really cared about the welfare and safety of other people, how come it doesn't intervene in other matters? My government "helps" only when there is something to be gained, and then it goes in and pretends to help. And my government is not alone in this attitude. Just about every major power has behaved in this manner. I guess that's how they got to be major powers, by being ruthless thugs. And they tell the citizens we need to fight, we need to save people. They make it sound like it's a heroic thing to go fight in their wars. I say no more. Don't go fight in any more wars for these rich, arrogant, evil government leaders anymore. They can't play their murderous games anymore, if nobody is willing to pick up a gun and fight for them. Because they are all just a bunch of fucking liars. They say whatever it takes to convince the citizens the war is needed. And they purposely provoke other countries. They are like the Duke brothers on Trading Places, just playing with people's lives, only on a much grander and bloodier scale. Fuck them and fuck their wars. If they want war, they can go fight in the war themselves.
Best comment...I see your eyes have been opened.
I cringe every time I hear some rich bloke telling about how some ' poor people' have to be saved somewhere, which just happens to be exactly the place where he's got some business interest running.
Then we should laugh, but I cry instead, when I notice how many ignorant and stupid people fall for it...
like both of your comments :)
Janet Congratulations your eyes are open..... there are alot more people like yourself.... thing is the more delve into history you'll see human development is founded on manipulation and deception in almost every way possible.
War has been the essential part of the survival of the human race. Take a look at how animals live in the jungle, some animal species eating up other species. Some Animals survive due to their defense tactic. Human race has been constantly fighting to protect its own family race. Natural selection shows that even humans survive by adaptation, which includes bullying others to be safe in your own territory. This defense tactics happens on a national and global level. If you don't want to fight I am sure you will like to defend yourself, and defending yourself is best on a national level. If the aliens decided to attack the human then humans will defend their self on human level.
Because history is repetitive and the wealthy ie the ones in power manipulate the poor to do their bidding. The wealthy do NOT send their children into the fight as they will not sacrifice their superior blood for the end result which is more power and money. If the majority woke up to the lies of the ruling classes wars would cease to exist. You do not fight for the wealthy and your government and it is NOT the people who initial war they are ones beng led astray but the dubious manipulation of the ruling classes i.e. politicians and military complex!
Watching in class lol
same
Joe mama wamma Anchors thanks?
Thank You for the information's, well done bravo!
Epic video.
Germans 1914 : Lets Make a European Empire
Germans 2014 : Lets expand European Union
hmmmmmm
+Warlord 120321 nah Germans 1914:Defend our brothers Austria
Germans 2014: We are shit we serve the rest of europe and we don't wanna rule and let the
US doing that
@IXI
Germans 1914; They are surrounding us. Let's take care of these Froggies quickly just like in 1871 and then deal with the Russians. March through Belgium and......
Germans 1918: Grrrrrr......&#*^$
Germans 1940; Vengeance!!!
Germans 1945; This doesn't work....
Germans 1990; Now this has potential.
Germans 2018; We FINALLY rule Europe.
British 1914: Let's clip the wings of the German eagle and also defend Belgium.
British 1918: OMG, what a mess. 0__0
British 1940; We shall NEVER surrender
British 1945; We're ruined.....
British 2016; We're out.
French 1914; Aux armes!
French 1918; Mon Dieu, horriblement. 0__0
French 1940; Not again!
French 1945; This doesn't work; let's cooperate with these Germans instead of fight them.
French 2018; Hmmmm.......We don't really like this.
Dutch (my lot) 1914; None of our bussiness
Dutch 1918; Thank God we managed to stay out of that mess.
Dutch 1940; WTF?????
Dutch 1945; NEVER again! We must cooperate with the rest of Europe to prevent these disasters.
Dutch 1993: Now we've done it. We managed to enforce one single currency upon the whole of Europe.
Dutch 2018: OMG; we created a monster!
Justice Defender No one denies the fact that Wilhelm II's military bulid-up, his swaggering aggressiveness as well as the blank cheque to Austria-Hungary, were causes of World War I. But what about:
1. Serbian Terrorism: Serbia's long-term goal, was to create a kingdom of Greater Serbia, by ANY means necessary. When Franz Ferdinand, came along and offered his future Slavic subjects greater autonomy within the Aistro-Hungarian empire, this made the Archduke a threat to Serbian plans, therefore, he must be eliminated;
2. Russian Aggressiveness In the Balkans: By 1914, the Ottoman Empire, was in a sharp and steady decline. Her Balkan subjects and ex-subjects, began to fight the Ottomans (and each other). In spite of Russian claims of being the protectors of both the Slavs and the Orthodox faith, Russia wanted to not only wanted to annex the Balkans, they also wanted to capture Constantinople and take over the Ottoman Empire;
3. French Resentment of Germany: Prior to French defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, France was, since the days of Loius XIV, the most dominant nation on the European continent. When Germany, under Bismarck, demanded French cession of Alsace-Lorraine, this caused the French to shift their traditional hatred away from Britain, and towards Germany. The rise of a wealthy, industrialized, militaristic Germany, upset traditional balance of power on the European continent;
4. The British Sense of Naval Entitlement: Ever since Nelson's victory at Trafalgar in 1805, Britain had reigned supreme at sea. Between 1815 and 1914, official British foreign policy, has been to isolate itself from the European continent, and to concentrate on its empire, which was protected by the Royal Navy. At its peak, the British Navy, was larger than ANY two navies in the world combined. When Wilhelm II announced to the world that he intended to build a navy to rival Britain's, this caused the British to become paranoid, and to begin looking for allies;
5. British Hesitation Over Honoring Its Commitments: When Germany declared was against France and Russia, Britain should've been declaring war on Germany and Austria-Hungary; they chose to hold back. Had Britain indicated right from the start that it would honor its commitments, Wilhelm II would've backed down.
Malcolm Lewis Excellent summary.
when you forget to put your tames on passive
anyone know who the last guy is in 4:30 going after france?
nevermind its britian right
World War I started because of two main reasons: militarism and alliances.
First, militarism means that countries were building up their armies and navies, trying to outdo each other in strength and weapons. This made everyone very tense and ready for war.
Second, the system of alliances meant that countries had made agreements to support each other if one of them was attacked. The major alliances were the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy) and the Triple Entente (France, Russia, and Britain). Because of these alliances, a conflict between two countries could quickly drag many others into the fight.
When Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary was assassinated, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Due to the alliances, other countries were pulled into the war, and it quickly escalated into a global conflict.
*The big picture in regards to the potential Anglo-German Alliance.*
Let's not forget there is always a big picture.
"The Naval Laws (German: Flottengesetze, "Fleet Laws") were five separate laws passed by the German Empire, in *1898, 1900, 1906, 1908, and 1912."*
[wiki]
Note that these had to be approved and passed in the German Reichstag (Berlin parliament), and were therefore not secret.
Without sufficient support, any bill (such as in any democratic process) could have been downvoted.
British "offers" re. "an alliance", or limiting the effects of blockades, or at least the "heartfelt desire" (LOL) of neutrality in case of a European War made to the continent's most powerfull country (alliance):
*1898:* The Chamberlain/Balfour offers re. "an alliance" (1898), serious efforts to achieve are generally considered (by most historians) as to have pettered out and ending in 1903.
*1908:* The Hague International Law (an attempt by the international community to limit the effects of blockades to short range blockades of ports only, which would therefore not affect neutrals or non-belligerents). This was negotiated, agreed upon, signed, but then not ratified by London.
*1912:* The Haldane Mission (1912). Berlin of course soon found out that Haldane was there to "talk, not negotiate"...
Weird...
Bait and switch....
Make a "sweet offer"...
*Dangle a juicy carrot in front of the donkeys, hoping that the "other side" were "lions lead by donkeys"...*
Potentially influence members of the German parliament, in the way they would vote on the Naval Bills (the typical "undecided" minister could be potentially "swung"). Or "dragging feet" with regards to negotiations themselves, until the date of the vote, thereby torpedoeing its implementation.
Re. the critical question concerning the obvious correlation between the dates of the German naval bills, and sudden London "friendly offers" re. alliances, talks regarding changes to International Law which would deeply affect London's "grip" (via the Royal Navy) on a continental power, or a neutrality accord with the continent's most powerfull state (and alliance, the Dual Alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary).
*Of course "What about the missing 1906?" is a perfectly valid question.*
The "naval act" of 1906 was merely an insignificant amendment, without great weight.
"1906 Amendment: Approved 19 May 1906; strength unchanged except for 5 extra large cruisers for the foreign fleet plus 1 extra large cruiser in material reserve, and 48 additional torpedo boats."[from wiki]
Here the lack of any special London interest in the leadup to the German parliament voting on the bill of 1906 is even more conspicious that the cause for London's "offers" is related the German Naval Acts, and that there is a direct connection between these (cause and effect).
*But surely the dates are "purely coincidence" or could simply be "correlation", not causal (search for "correlation does not imply causation").*
None whatsoever.
London considered itself the "balancer of powers", and had no intention of having her hands tied re. the way they intended to fight in any "next great war", whichever way it unfolded, whoever "started it", or whatever the causes and reasons for such war could be (no hindsight, since of course nobody knew there would be a war in 1914: but "policy" was "policy" regardless).
London had no intention of using the diplomatic means realistically at London's disposal to limit the risk of a war breaking out, by attempting to alleviate the tension between the three powers in question (Germany/France/Russia). *It suited the London lords just fine that Germany was wedged in between GB's main historical imperialist rivals for territory and gain (Russia and France),* and the lords had no intention of sacrificing the potential situation that all continental powers, engaged in a "total war", would end up "mutually exhausted", thereby strengthening the grip a little nation of 40 million people had on world affairs ("weight"). Of course, if everybody else ended up "totally exhausted" and "totally demoralized", one's own "power"/"leverage" would automatically rise respective to others.
Of course, for politicians who considered the presence of an opposing army in Belgium as a threat, as Casus Belli, or a "pistol pointing at the heart of London", the fact that Russian soldiers were less than 100 miles from Berlin, and of great worry (two-front war) to Berlin, is pure hypocrisy.
*Even a simple neutrality accord or non-aggression pact between London and Berlin would have taken a great burden off Berlin's shoulders,* since a war (any war threatening the balance of power) would have automatically included GB/Empire.
Berlin was confident of being able to repulse any French/Russian attack (two-front war), but with GB thrown into the deal as the self-proclaimed "balancer of powers", it would *have to* be a "short war" through Belgium (note: "in strategy" or "an explanation", not to be confused with "apologia" or "sympathy for invading armies" for which there is none on my part).
A pre-war neutrality agreement or non-aggresion pact between London and Berlin would have meant Berlin could return to the pre-1905 situation (no single contingency plan, aka the so-called "Schlieffen Plan" only, but rather multiple war plans adapted to expected circumstances as had existed prior to 1913), comfortable in mastering any potential Russian or French aggression should such aggression ever arise. Lastly, with any form of long-term mutually beneficial treaty/alliance/accord in place and ratified, Germany would also not have needed a bigger navy.
History is not set in stone, and any positive changes along the way would have effected events on the timeline.
possibly the single... best video of the 4-main causes
Some one from shean pls send me there work on this so I can copy
Those MAPS! With interwoven horrors. Where did they come from?? WOW!
There's only 1 reason: Europe was too small for a bunch of highly industrialized nations packing together, everyone wanted more space to conquer and bigger market to sell their goods.
WW2 in essence wasn't so different
Incredibly myopic summarisation of ww1. Because of course no one could ever sell their goods without conquering another nation before selling to it? /s
It was caused by the a network of alliances (Triple Entente vs Triple Alliance) which was formed as a strategic balance of power being put into action. In hindsight having a finely balanced alliance between the major European powers wasn't such a good idea because a single incident with any one of those countries would pull all other countries within the alliances into war. Fortunately Europe has now reached the conclusion that it isn't economical to be at war with one another and has instead opted for an economic alliance between countries in the form of the EU.
WW2 can trace its roots back to WW1, but the causes were not the same. Fascism had come to Europe, and Asia, and so Europe was yet again forced to go war to thwart the ever growing threat of Nazi Germany, and later the Japanese Empire in the Pacific which had attacked the United States.
Ww2 happened because of the faulty desire on the part of the brits and the French to contain communism and trying to use nazi germany, which then immediately backfired, at least in europe that is.
WWII was not a single belligerent. japan had attacked manchuria and italy had attacked ethiopia before hitler attacked anyone.
But. They were all single entities as opposed to partners in a pact . Maybe that’s what the video meant?
What’s worse is that just because Germany preemptively struck the Soviet union they take the blame for the entire war? Did anyone object when Stalin attacked Poland from the east? No in fact they only declared war on Germany? Sometimes I think mainstream narrative history is just made up on the fly hoping no one will pay attention.
Nahtan Trippek the french crossed a dmz in coal region, in 37, i think it was?. Churchills rhetoric was funded, aggression was in the air, shall we say. Always a good idea to get both sides of a story, if possible? Post-war propaganda was laid on so thick, a theme starts to emerge, regardless. Happy trails.
Yeah, but-- Hitler solidified the program & gave the rest of the world a moral rallying cry. Then they all went about morally destroying & collapsing & foaming at the chops for some five years. Splendid moral tale that ends in vaporizing two cities & teaching us about atomic theory! How's that for progress? !
Stravo Lukos there is the little known part of the jewish congress in america, declaring war on germany in 33 (there are newspaper articles from this time you can find). Similar conditions exist today (nationalst wise), and the same banksters as then. It must be done another way. Odd that bolsheviks weren’t declared war on as well (poland, britains excuse for entering the war)?. The narrative now still can’t hide the fact, the national socialsts were trying to defeat communism, doesn’t take too much to join the dots, when you discover the reds that returned to russia, and the released prisoners, when they smelled blood ), changed their names. (Look up trotsky and lenins real names), the seeming senslessness, starts to make more sense (if that makes sense). Look at lybia now (, good standard of living one time), prisoners released, wealth stolen (most likely), chaos basically (and the immigrant bottleneck to europe unblocked, according to assange/bolger), banksters again, evidently...syria, venezeula, and whoever else, wants out, of petrototaltarianism, masquerading as democracy (you choose, left, or right?), will be subjected to the regime change playbook?. And the answer people like to spout is “ would you rather china/russia (, or whoever), control things”?. I think we may be going to find out (not sure if that is by bankster design as well). We need to rise above these warring ways. The man is keeping us down.
Can someone please put subtitles on this video?
what does he say at 1.23
It’s
Militarism
Alliances
Assassination
Imperialism
Nationalism
So maain
(Pronounced: M-AAY-N
I guess I should start making educational videos to profit off of coronavirus then
Hello from PHS in NC!
(I am the 800th comment-)
i love world wars and studying wars in general its the other stuff that made me drop history welp so now im taking geography (wish me luck on my many 9 markers and case studies)! HOpe everyone has a good day as well
No mention of Professor Moriarty???
He was also beginning preliminary design for the highly explosive RBMK reactor, as well as creating the nucleus for a future terrorist organization in the asteroid belt. Fiendishly clever villain, that Moriarty.
"Possibly the most pondered question in history". Is every body just gonna skate by that? Alright
Zip, while he ponders, you know about Balfore?
You don't agree?
I think one of the goals of WW1 was the dismantling of the Ottoman empire, because they had a great relationship with Germans and Britain/France didnt like. Russia jumped on the chance to expand west and south
Exam is first period tomorrow.
Watching it to go to sleep and hope that I remember something
Gavrilo Princip was born in Austro-Hungary and it was their citizen. He was a member of Young Bosnia, Pan-Slavic, not Pan-Serbian organization, like Young Czechs, etc. You had Muslims, Croats, etc in Young Bosnia. They were anarchists, nihilists and anti-monarchical, thus against Serbian ruling dynasty. These features made connections of Young Bosnia and Black hand, non government, officer anti-monarchical organization, also for republic and Pan-Slavic in character.
tom barber is a dry spaghetti noodle
does anyone know which countries are allied and which are central
Wiki it.😂😂
Who was the Author?
I've studied many wars and conflicts throughout history. WW1 has always been a special case. I like to refer to it as the Stupid War or the most stupid war ever fought. Trying to find even one good reason for it is difficult. It was basically fought based on poor thinking and pride. I have yet to find one good reason why all those people had to die. The world leaders of that time should remembered as very poor leaders, not as hero's.
Don't you think It was actually inevitable. I am new to world history and this is the first time I've made a deep research on any historical events background, or any historical event for that matter. For what I've learned there was an unstoppable growth in Europe, with many countries being in an ongoing powerful era for themselves. The Balkans with their "independence" (not to mention Serbia which seems to be the most problematic), Russia and her image, Britain and their concern for Germany, Germany and her many problems and stupid decisions, France and their hatred or resentment over the Franco- Prussia war, etc. I'm sorry if I'm completely wrong on this subject but I´ve been learning all day about the prelude to this war from UA-cam and Google. I would REALLY appreciate an answer. Thank you!
Not really. It seems to have been based on the ease with which Africa was taken over and chest thumping politics. There were a lot of problems in Europe for sure. A lot of social unrest. The "Holy Roman Empire" would be one flaming example. For your studies I would start with the French Revolution. It seems the world woke up to freedom of choice and having a say during this period. Europe hasn't been the same since. Worse yet, the world leaders of the WW1 time happily lead their people to war based mostly on pride. Then when the war went in the horrible direction that it did, there was no easy way out. Pride, like nationalism, is a two edge sword. Hope this helps. I enjoyed your comments, write any time.
Very naive outlook on war, and the First World War. If you really want to know why these wars precipitated, you have to look at the money trail. Very powerful and affluent individuals and families were looking for ways to consolidate their power, realizing that a globalized post-industrial world was going to be inevitable. They realized even back then that the world was going to be controlled in ways unlike before, and that national borders would no longer play as massive as a role as they did previously. If you control the money, you control the leaders of countries, you control their policy, you buy out the competition, and you finance your personal interests even if they can lead to armed conflict. Ever since then, these globalists have been repeating the same strategies time and time again. Create conflict/crisis -> offer solution by giving pretext for mass policy change -> armed conflict if necessary -> consolidate wealth -> repeat as necessary.
he ex[plained it in 6minutes and seven seconds,CLICKBAIT!!!
We luv u MR Waleed
This assignment is due today for me
No offence, but the video doesn't do a great job of explaining why these factors happened in the first place.
A professor in history once explained that it was all down to international trade. He said that all the points in MAIN are created because of the economic interests.
@Horus Fitterer Gonna be honest I think my 1300+ hours in Hearts of Iron 4 is the real problem here
n!gga fart
How did this video fail to even mention the Anglo Persian Oil Company?
Nice
First Gavrilo princip was not part of the black hand, he was member of young Bosnia.Second those organisations were not terorist organisations, they fught for liberation of their own countries and unification of all slavic ppl in the region.Third thing, none young Bosnia nor black hand were consisted 100% of Serbs, there were members from Croatia,muslims from Bosnia, Serbs, so it means that idea of unification was suported from all the ppl who lived there, so it cannot be said that this is Serbian nationalism.
This is all facts, easy to check.
I hit a huge dislike cos I’m forced to watch this for online fucking school
Interesting, but I still don’t understand what caused WWI, but I did love all the posters.
Doing hmk on this it’s actually good it’s easy to understand
Hmk?
I DONT UNDERSTAND THIS (rip my homework) SO ANYWAY DRACO MALFOY TIKTOK 🥵🥵🥵🥵🥵 AM I RIGHT OR AM I RIGHT
LMFAO