The National WWI Museum and Memorial is America's leading institution dedicated to remembering, interpreting and understanding the Great War and its enduring impact on the global community.
As a teacher of US history, I'm getting a bit sick and tired of being lectured to by old men about what I am not teaching in my classroom. Textbooks might be incomplete, but my teaching sure as h--l was not. Give us in the classroom some credit.
Point well made and my comment here is not a rebuttal in the least but a question for why the scope isn't broader (I suspect that the answer is the public cares only about what is in front and what suits them, the latter is what I am interested in). The atrocities in the Philippines, what the British and French had been doing in the decades prior, poor baby Belgium knife at their throat mercilessly raping the Congo, the autocratic Hapsburg empire relatively benign and the autocratic Russian one about as bad as its stereotype and lastly and bizarrely ignored, the German atrocities in Africa all seem to have played such an insignificant part that, almost as yang to the yin of the mystery writer who said 'don't believe the British propaganda, the reality is bad enough' it seems to me that can be true while the reverse side of the coin is too: it's all about how you sell yourself.
Since you brought up "The Sound of Music" and the Von Trapps fleeing Austria to escape the Nazis I refer you to Christopher Plummer's statement that if he had of known what Nazis bastards they were he would have never taken the role.. They were not escaping from the Nazis but from the Russians. When I was little one of our local doctors was Rupert Von Trapp and I knew him and went to school with one of his daughters. Rupert left the family and became a doctor refusing to perpetuate the lie any more. He was "cancelled" by the family to the extent of even portraying him as the oldest daughter in the film. When Rupert's wife and daughter were struck down with polio Maria refused to allow anyone in the family to help them. Maria was did not leave the convent, but was told to leave because she had turned into a Nazi fanatic and for her loyalty, the Nazi Party the arranged for her to become the nanny in order for her to arrange for the children to perform at Nazi rallies.
Sitting about doing nothing! The Royal navy put the vast majority of it's resources into the ''Hunger Blockade'' starving up to 750.000 German civilians. It wasn't lifted till 1919 after the peace treaty was signed. After all Britain made alliances with it's traditional enemies France and Russia without parliaments consent or knowledge.
WE NII MII PUU FOUGHT AGAINST THE FIRST CAVALRY IN 1877..MY NII MII PUU GRAMPA JOINED THE FIRST CAVALRY IN WW1...NOT ONE OF THEM WAS A CITIZEN OF THEIR OWN COUNTRY. DIDNT GET OUR CITIZENSHIP FOR AWHILE..THEY WERE STILL PISSED OFF AT US FOR FIGHTING BACK..
Absolutely fascinating lecture, brilliantly researched and flawlessly delivered. The part about the battle-hardened French division moving cautiously & slowly ahead reminded me of the WW.II battle for Caen (after D-Day), where the cautiousness & slowness of the British & Canadian troops exasperated the US commanders in Normandy who were much more willing to sustain losses: same causes, same outcomes. One amusing detail : the lecturer (Dr Shawn Faulkner) has trouble mastering the correct pronunciation for the name of the Meuse river. He oscillates between (at the beginning) an imaginative "Mews" - which a Frenchman has real trouble to recognize - and (towards the end) something approaching the correct pronunciation, which would be [møz]. And lastly, the French equivalent of “Going Bloiey" is: "être Limogé", which remains to this day a recognized expression in the language. __ .
As an American, this whole presentation is an embarrassment. Both the Canadians and the Australians/New Zealanders had more of a role in the Entente victory than we did. Arguably, the Indians too. Even in 1918, they took more German-held territory than we did. I understand the American potential for 1919 is part of what convinced German leadership to surrender, but this dude is trying to argue that it was American combat actions that forced the surrender which is just wrong. We were still a second-rate army in autumn 1918, and fought like it. At best, the American potential gave the British and French the fortitude to hold back the German 1918 offensives. But "we" didn't physically do that. They did.
Ther problems of Armenians is they are living with the past ! I cant believe how 90% of armenians are so stupid even most populations of armenians who living in europe and USA than owne country in Armenia.If you telling to the police my car stolen by my neighbour without law you can't prove this. There is international Law orgonisation in Holland ,only this international orgonisation can make this official decision! And as all world knows till today no one from armenian government will request from this organization to recognise this as a gonesode! The question why Armenian government didn't request , i can say there is no prove! This is next Armenians lie!
Stevenson admits that he revised his own ideas. Nothing wrong with that if we keep in mind that he might do it again. Now this will be controversial, but I am going to say it without any ill will toward anyone. I am just reporting what I heard from a speech that I found on the web. I probably heard it on the web 15 years ago and it was decades before when it had been given. The context is 1917. That is the year of US entry into the war and it is also that in 1917 that the Balfour Declaration was issued. The speaker in the speech, a Jew turned Roman Catholic, stated that higher ups in England promised the Jews a homeland if they would get their brethren in America to convince the leaders in America to enter the war. I like this explanation for two reasons: 1) It is about back room deals and that is how things really get done in politics, and 2) war is about people using violence to get what they want. That is a truism. Clausewitz the 19th c German war theoretician stated that war is forcing others to do what you want them to do.
One of the reasons the Eastern Front is not in people memory is probably in part due to the names: Przemyśl was as big a fortress as Verdun and caused the Russians all kinds of headaches. But The Battle of Verdun commits itself to memory better than The Battle of That Place No One Can Pronounce.
This was a different understanding of the Paris Peace Conference and the resulting treaties (!) than I have ever heard before! All of the other explanations focused strictly on the Versailles Treaty with the Germans. Mention was occasionally made of the continued conflicts in other areas beyond the German treaty, but no explanations or details were given to broaden the understanding of the larger picture of the multiple problems in the rest of the world. I am really interested now in learning about this larger picture! Thanks so much!
My grandfather worked for the missouri pacific rr in falls city nebraska maintaining locomotives when ww1 started for the united states in 1917 he joined the us army did bootcamp in new mexico and went to france as a us army railroad engineer they were some of the first americans to arrive over there and they did not come back untill 1919
Look up the Battle of Amiens, August 8 1918 which Ludendorff called the Black day of the German army in the war. The Australian and Canadian corps advanced 8 miles in a day and began the 100 day advance which ended with the armistice on November 11.
How did Falkenhayn not consider that he could manage to bleed the French army but with a high risk of bleeding the German army at the same time? However, he was far from being an idiot. Okay, it's easy to write it more than a hundred years after the battle...
I'd always been a little ambivalent with the typical conventional wisdom that Jutland was "indecisive" or "inconclusive"; thanks for that perspective on its larger significance. It's easy to see why that perception dominates, of course. And it's easy to see how British opinion - whether among the public at large or within the UK govt and RN - was rather dissatisfied. But, "continuation of a status quo in which your navy already decisively dominates anyway" has to be counted as a strategic success, does it not? No matter how unsatisfying it may have been on an operational or tactical level. Another way to look at it might be that Jutland could not have been anything OTHER than strategically "indecisive", regardless of tactical outcome. If Jellicoe does win the tactically "decisive" victory which so many have said for a century that he should have, does that really change anything in the big picture? It's hard to see how it would have. It's not as if Britain would have been able to "blockade harder" than it was doing anyway. It's also not as if it was really the HSF which primarily denied a realistic amphibious threat to Germany's North Sea and Baltic coasts...submarines, mines, robust coastal defenses/artillery, and simple geography/hydrography seem to have been larger - or at very least equal - factors. It seems to me that a "decisive" (and necessarily far bloodier) Jutland would still have meant just what it did in the actual event: preservation - but no real improvement - of a status quo which already heavily favored Britain. So the only real difference would have been "merely" a lot more ships sunk and many thousands more British and German sailors killed. One could perhaps argue that Jutland's historical outcome - relatively light losses given the mammoth forces involved - was actually the best-case result for both navies. Short of the battle simply not having been fought at all, of course. Very much a "hindsight 20/20" take from a century-later perspective, I admit.
(31:45) The Grand Fleet, expecting a torpedo attack, turns away from the Hochseeflotte when it makes an about turn - and thus loses contact. A 'Jutland watcher' for many years, I only recently learned in another YT video that turning away from a torpedo attack was the Standard Operating Procedure in the Royal Navy at the time of Jutland. Of course, the pertinence of that SOP is a matter of debate (a torpedo hit in the propellers is the worst thing that can happen to a battleship), but for a Navy man a SOP is a SOP! If it is true that turning away was the SOP at the time of Jutland - and I wish Dr Kuehn could confirm - I can't see how Jellicoe could be blamed for implementing it in such critical circumstances.
It is interesting to watch how researchers accentuate on ethnic and linguistical diversity of A-H and at the same time doesn't pay atention to russian empire which was even more diverse. It is clear that russians doesn't give a fuck to all peoples of their empire. But come on if A-H paid attention to that issue then they had less problems with that issue. And by the way only thing A-H soldier must know were 80 German words to understand commands. So don't make the big deal out of that matter More to say people in multiethnical/multicultural regions which were in A-H deal with each other pretty well. So why they couldn't get along if they put them in uniform? A-H army was formed on territiorial basis. People from the same region became the part of the same formation at least at the start of the war A-H had defincies and disadvantages byt that was not one of them How about colonial soldiers of France or Britain. They all knew English or French? How all that non-French troops on Western Front were coordinated with each other and with French?
