It's 1am. I have an exam at 9.30am. I am doing a last minute panic study on late 19th century German empire and this video helped tremendously. Legend. Many thanks!
Very good synthesis. Particularly liked: "Germany can be seen as an upstart. A newly rich that got big and strong too fast. The result was the overestimation of one's own abilities."
Wrong the result was british empire feeling threatened because germany was about to be better and overtake them in everything and replacing them as the world power. And because the french were mad because prussia and its allies defeated Napoleon and ended french hegemony in Europe.
@@clutch7548 germany didnt overestimate itself. Kaiser Wilhelm didnt want war and basicly begged for Peace talks very much in the beginning of the war. There was nor reason for germany to start a war since they were doin so great. Btw its acknowledged by historians that germany didnt start ww1. The treaty of Versailles and a few other things paved the path for the germans voting for someone like hitler and thus inevitably also lead to ww2. Germany overestimated its abilitys to win ww2 yes. But germany didnt even want ww1.
Thanks a lot for this video! I'm currently learning for my history bilingual exams (for my Abitur) and I just couldn't find any records on the Wilhelmine era- so this was really helpful. It's quite uncommon to find English sources on German history, so I'm even happier...
Well done. May i suggest find a comfortable alternative to persistent arm gestures from side to side? Ive found myself trying to ignore it because to me it served as a distraction and served no purpose.
Hey man, Before anything, I have to say, you are BUFF haha but really, great video, as usual. I love the amount of research you put in these videos; you are definitely one of the most detailed and intellectual RU-vid historians that I know. I like that you don't shy away from depth when many on RU-vid (including me) are scared of it. Just a few things: I think you should put a box above any writing to make it easier to read. You should also look for a nicer font. I'm not a fan of the linear wipe transitions with the videos, it feels a bit cheap, you know? Also, you should avoid these big zooms into the low-quality images. I like when you put them on your side. Were you tired when you filmed this? You look a bit tired haha and it's pitch dark outside.
Hey Barris! Thank you, that is what I attempt to do: create a bit of depth. After moving house (currently staying in an empty apartment until I can enter the new one) I will change several things: the videos will be more accessible and give a more global background about the topic in the introduction, will be a little bit more lighthearted (occasionally, I enjoy going in depth) and the editing. I watch your videos religiously and really love the editing. It is a skill I have yet to develop, and it makes me appreciate the work you put in your videos even more. The box behind the text is a very good idea, I will check how to implement that in further videos. The font is the same font as in my thumbnails, it is easy on the eye and nothing fancy. Then again, it is worth exploring the horizon and I will look at some font websites. What do you think would be a suitable alternative for the linear wipe transitions? I used to fade them in but was not sure if that looked better or worse than this. About the zoom: I try to switch things up, occasionally a full view and occasionally (with smaller pictures) put them on my side (thanks to your advice, by the way ;)). I filmed it after a long day, hope it wasn't too monotone. Thank you, as always, for the feedback! It would be fun to chat outside of YT to discuss small things history-related, especially because I have plans for a few videos about France (and Algiers) in January! If you're open to that, I'll shoot you an e-mail?
@@HoH I look forward to seeing the changes once you move house - it seems like it'll be great. I also watch your videos religiously and really love the research and depth. I recommend watching "Vox" videos; they have great editing yet simple editing that makes their videos much more interesting. I know I try out a lot of what they do. Yes, now I see that it's the same font. I still think you can find a nicer font, but it's not a priority either. For the big images, hard cuts are more than fine. I use to always want to put transitions, too, but realized that hard cuts are more than fine. If you like any of my transitions, just ask me and I can tell you how I did it. Most of them are pretty simple. I do think you should switch up but I think the photo over a zoomed/blurry background of the photo was nicer and avoided the low quality of the zoom. My pleasure; I hope it helps you out! You weren't monotone, just looked a bit tired. I understand though, we all get long days. I would love to do that. I'm sending you an email now on the email you provided in your "About" - is that alright? Algiers sounds great though; I hope to go there one day.
P.S: Look at this video by Stefan: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4dR9YiIMrpM.html I think the edits he uses to show the pictures and writing would fit your channel a lot. I really enjoy the black box on the side.
@@ThisisBarris For some reason this was labelled as spam and I only just saw this comment. Yeah Stefan's vids are very stylish! I hope the black box I've adopted makes text more easier to read now.
Regarding the rhetoric of "states have a right to do anything they want" with regards to own affairs (Westphalian Principles), let us examine how the neighboring states actually *react* while others "do as they please" without consideration. We can conclude that one can make fairly accurate future predictions, by looking at past actions of similar "choices". After hundreds of years of becoming victims of outside meddling and invasions from all sides, German states decided they would unite and stand as one power (Westphalian Principles adhered to). Outcome? France felt threatened. France declared war and invaded hoping for a favorable own outcome (= a divided Central Europe they could continue to "play games" with). Also in 1870, France "felt encroached upon" and felt theatened by encirclement (a potential Spanish-Prussian Alliance), and reacted with violence/war. Of course, words are twisted and mauled to turn "poor little France" into a victim. An obvious emotional appeal to the population here, used in "divide and conquer/rule" strategy by mainly the US and GB, who had ulterior motives for the twisted narrative ("divide" the opposition/rivals on continental Europe). Today, the attempted "narrative" is still spun to turn the aggressor into the victim. *What happened to the "France, just put on the big boy pants" and "just suck it up"-narratives here?* Why not simply accept becoming encroached upon? Why not simply do nothing? Critical question: Who "started it"? The side/s simply sticking to the Westphalian Principles, or the side which decided to do something about a potential future threat? After her battle for more independence, Cuba needed more prtoection by a "big brother" (Bay of Pigs invasion, etc.). After hundreds of years of becoming victims of outside meddling and subjection (Spainish Empire, US corporatism in the 30s, etc.) and invasions from all sides, Cubans decided they would unite and stand as one, and the new state invited Soviet forces to help out (Westphalian Principles adhered to). Outcome? The "poor alpha" felt encroached upon by a few Russian nukes, and decided to create a situation ("naval blockade") which almost triggered WW3, as we know today. *What happened to the "put on the big boy pants" and "suck it up"-narratives here?* Why not simply accept becoming encroached upon? Why not simply do nothing? The same critical question: Who "started it"? The side/s simply sticking to the Westphalian Principles, or the side which decided to do something about a potential future threat? Another example of "a state feeling encroached upon" is GB after 1900. As a united Germany grew in power and territory ("colonialism"), Berlin decided it needed a navy to protect/expand her overseas territories, just like everybody else had this right" (colonial powers). Since a suitable alliance partner with a big navy was not forthcoming (GB stated it was in "Splendid Isolation" and declined, with regards to Wilhelm's 1890 offer made directly after Bismarck took his hat), the only solution left to Berlin was to built an own navy. That then resulted in an arms race, "luxury navy" speeches ("propaganda frontlines"), and the current "rule the world"-narratives still repeated without firm evidence to back up such an allegation. *After 1898, GB "felt encroached upon" and theatened by a neighbor.* Why not simply accept becoming encroached upon? Why not simply do nothing? Again, the same critical question: Who "started it"? The side simply sticking to the Westphalian Principles, or the side which decided to do something about a potential future threat? Obviously, there are various ways and strategies, to counter such long-term threats to a state's existence, and the strange phenomena? They are all similar, irrespective of time under discussion, or "good guys"/"bad guys". Fact: The good guys and the bad guys read the same books, so all that is left is "causality/outcome". "The narrative" is of course always "spun" (for the own populations), that certain people ("us") always have a "special right" to encroach on others, but nobody has a right to encroach on us. If they do, *they are evil, and unreasonable.* Obvious rhetoric: We, and only we in the privileged "temporary good guy club", have the "God given right" to do anything we please, and even end the species and planet's very existence, if *our* future is even vaguely put in a position of a potential future threat. All of the above, is then accompanied by a very favorable and usually heavily one-sided reporting of events to the "own side", by the power mongers and the hawks of politics and media. *Those who stand the most to gain (vested interests), must convince those who stand the most lose (life), and the "convincers" have all the advantages on their side.* Advice? If the situation is even vaguely similar, just leave. Those who wish to encroach on others should get a suitable answer. Give the "always debating"-clubs a raised hand and middle finger, and then get away as far as possible, as soon as possible. And when your freedom to decide your very own body's "Westphalian Principles", but they become enfringed upon (aka "conscription", you've already missed the bus. Sorry, lol). No point trying "to debate" or reason a way out with logic. Get out. Fast. "Common sense" seems to be difficult to grasp, and that was the reason Europe lost the "pole position" in world affairs. There is no need to make this complicated: Good ol' biblical logic, the result of thousands of years of human observation states how entire causal chains of events often start with small, selfish, thoughtless, greedy, bossy, rash, blind and unconsidered actions (own actions). How to discover if something is "wrongfull"? Put yourself in the shoes of others. Therefore, don't do to others what one wouldn't find acceptable, if placed in the same situation. Apart from very few exceptions, it is really that simple to achieve good relations. By golly. Who would have ever thought that people waaaaaay back could be that smart. *Fact? Causality doesn't care who is right and who is wrong.*
Brilliant, thank you. But the problem is that good relations are not profitable so in such a case it is the rules of capital that take over, what can we do? One day the world will realize that the good guys are not vicious enough to win wars, only the dirty bastards willing to lie, cheat and break every rule can win so when the world finally sees the light... DARN, I forgot the rest!
Siemens was both British and German. Howden and TripleK seemed to develop almost parallel turbo iterations of torpedo engines. Their electrical and combustion engines research were collaborative for decades prior to and between the wars.
If Germanys ambitions were "unclear" then its just prejudice to say in the same sentence, they were aggressive. If the balance of power was essential for Great Britain to join the Francorussian alliance then Britain had in mind to stop the economic and scientific rise of Germany markets at any costs...
The HSF was built out of necessity. It was a so-called "risk fleet", aimed at keeping the RN at bay, *because* London refused an accord with Berlin. The view that Germany was not "allowed to build ships/shouldn't have built a navy/etc." of many historians is flawed. People, *any* people, independent of where they live, are affected by the events of the recent and relevant past (note, not the future, which they don't know about of course). *So why did the German taxpayer support the construction of a large German Navy?* Easy answer: past events. Kagoshima, Sebastopol (Krim War), Savannah, the Opium Wars, and hundreds of other "targets" ravaged by *naval bombardment* and wars as a result of squabbling over spheres of influence. That is what influenced public opinion at the time (1880s and 1890s), and why a nation of taxpayers would gladly use their newly created wealth, to support the construction of a navy. The object was not becoming the victim of another nation's arrogance of power. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Canton_(May_1841) As it was, during WW1, the Imperial German Navy might not have broken the long distance blockade of the RN, but they *did* avoid the RN from steaming into the Baltic, "Copenhagenizing" one German city after the next... www.google.com/search?client=tablet-android-asus-rev&biw=602&bih=964&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=copenhagen+navy+bombardement&oq=copenhagen+navy+bombardement&aqs=mobile-gws-lite... In fact, criticizing the construction of the Imperial German Navy from the comfortable position of hindsight today, makes as little sense as criticizing the construction of Chain Home or the ordering of large numbers of Hurricanes and Spitfires in the late 1930s... For *both* , there was a justified "cause". If one doesn't like the effect, then don't supply the cause. So who was going around the world, bomb(ard)ing everybody?
*Re. each and every "Bismarck kept Germany safe"-narrative, or variations of that.* It is based on the confusion of terms and definitions of words. The terms or concepts confused and whose definitions are often loosely conflated: *geopolitics* (international politics) and *grand strategy* (military scenario). *These are entirely different concepts.* Bismarck did not "keep Germany safe". The reality was that Bismarck appeased St. Petersburg, hoping that this *"appeasement"* would "keep Germany safe". Ahem...any historical similarities? :-) The Reinsurance Treaty gave a lot, and received little in return. It gave Russia a "shield for expansion", while in return it only offered limp geopolitical protection *(not* protection in regards to "grand strategy", or a "2-front war"). The reality of geopolitics at the time was that the Russian Empire was "cacooned" into a safe barrier created by geography/size. There was only one real "opening", which was Germany and Austria-Hungary in her west. If one has problems visualizing this, then image a horseshoe, placed on a map of pre-WW1 Russia, with the opening facing towards western Europe. The "horseshoe" is geography, which protected the Russian core with a barrier of geographical bariers with very few, and very limited (infrastructure) openings. *For all practical reasons (in geopolitics and grand strategy) a deal with Germany, kept Russia 100 % safe, while Germany was (in return) only 50% "safe" (geopolitics).* For Germany, there remained a dire threat of a 2-front war, and that was determined by geography also (Germany in the Center of the continent), which could only be closed by continuous vigilance and re-armament (quality was preferred over quantity). A bad deal, since the decision to rescind or not renew the treaty obviously also lay in the hands of St. Petersburg. Re the "100% safe Russia": For Russia, there was the Artic in the north, followed by Siberia, the Gobi desert, Himalayas, Hindukush, and mountainous Persia. These "barriers" continued with the Caspian Sea (not accessible to foreign navies), and the Caucasus. In Russia's south-west, there was only the weak "sick man", the Ottoman Empire (incl. by extension the Black Sea). As long as the core remained strong, the periphery would remain easily defensible. The "shield" protecting her west, was provided by Germany and Austria-Hungary, who involuntarily or "by extension" of the Reinsurance Treaty, or any other deal, protected Russia's western border. In regards to grand strategy, or the choice where to strike next: the initiative for such a choice remained in the hands of St. Petersburg for as long as her "non-aggression pact" was being "appeased" by Berlin (aka Reinssurance Treaty) remained intact. *What was there not to like for St. Petersburg?* The Reinsurance Treaty did not sit well with the London lords, regardless of the "kind words"-narrative we are reading about in our history books. I wonder why...LOL... *Further details often demoted to "ancillary status" if mentioned at all, but are in fact important concerning "what really happened".* 1) Unlike the previous agreements with Russia (Three Kaiser League) the Reinsurance Treaty was "secret", as far a "secrecy" was possible in the world of diplomacy. *Why could that possibly have been deemed as a neccessity?* In the age of the "Glastnost and Perestroika" of the times (openness/honesty of the Concert of Europe), why should none of the other powers know about this deal between Berlin and St. Petersburg? 2) It was St Petersburg who came up with the suggestion to replace the unworkable Three Kaiser League, which (initially) did not include Austria-Hungary (obvious hoodwink...let's leave HINT, HINT Austria-Hungary out of "our little deal" aka "throw the third little Kaiser under the bus"). 3) It was Bismarck himself who revealed it shortly before he died (1896), in an obvious attempt of a domestic political smear directed at Wilhelm II. In other words, in an attempt to get back at Wilhelm II for be "fired" and to discredit him or his status, he openly embarassed his own country by revealing "secret scheming" in an age where (LOL again) "everyone was supposed to be "transparent as glass"... The reality is that it was Bismarck himself who largely "wrote that history" with regards to "his" Reinsurance Treaty, and how he (backpat, backpat) "kept Germany safe". And because this fit in perfectly with "finger pointers", it was simply largely taken over by our own historians, who seemingly never bothered to investigate the premise of such an assumption. Historians quoting historians. Appeals to authority, and other fallacies... Reality couldn't have been further from the truth. As a general truth. *Actions speak louder than words.* Actions "count more" than mere words. Just like today, we should weigh "words" especially those of politicians and other power people (also words spoken across the divide of time in our history books) with a grain of salt. *What they did (historical sense) and do today (our reality today) is what counts, not what they say or said.*
Hi Jaoquin, would it interest you to know that Germany was the first contemporaneously modern nation to implement social reforms beginning in 1883? Germany would implement unprecedented State Social programs (German: _Staatssozialismus_ ) comprising _Health Insurance, Accident Insurance, Old Age and Disability Insurance, Workers Protection and Child Protection_ (see Wikipedia: State Socialism (Germany) [ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_(Germany) ]). Germany's move in this direction was not motivated by a proclivity on the part of Otto Von Bismark and Kaiser Wilhelm towards socialism - they had only a few years earlier attempted to pass _anti-Socialism_ legislation - but to placate the demands of the working-class population. Similar demands had been emerging in Anglo-American societies, but went largely ignored and/or violently repressed, often well, into the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The U.S., for example, still does not offer wholesale public Health Insurance, nor public Accident Insurance. Institutional anti-Labor actions were commonplace in the U.K. and Americas during the latter 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. The _Ludlow Massacre_ [1], for example, took place 1914 wherein Federal Soldiers were deployed as strike-breakers; whose actions resulted in the deaths of up to 1999 strikers and their families. A good case can be made that the emerging socialist direction undertaken by the German government, in combination with their increasing industrial capability as well as their colonial and transnational-trade aspirations (i.e. Berlin-to-Baghdad Railway [2]) encouraged Western allies to provoke conflict. It was during this period that Anglo-American institutional anti-Semitism was rampant, given that many Jewish intellectuals were leaders in significant Socialist movements - not least of which, Karl Marx figured prominently. If you're interested in an unconventional exploration of the motivations behind WWI, I would *highly recommend* a well-produced, well-cited/footnoted, documentary by independent journalist, _James Corbett._ James explores the imperial Anglo-American motivations for dominion and conquest (see _Corbett Report_ (Documentary | November 19, 2018) | *"The WWI Conspiracy"* | 01h:43m [ www.corbettreport.com/wwi/ ]). The documentary is fascinating in that the content explores material which is not communicated in canned historical accounts of the War. [1] Truthstream Media (RU-vid Channel) | "Forgotten History: The Ludlow Massacre & the PR Machine" | 42m:21s [ ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jIt8vMo67fk.html] [2] Wikipedia: Berlin-Baghdad railway [ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin-Baghdad_railway ]
@@PMunkS Entirely correct but nope, it didn't interest him. (and that doesn't include the pre-war third reich social innovations but we cannot talk about those, certainly not here)
I am interested in the working poor in Germany in the 1900 ,was the social situation like that of the Victorian or edwardian times in england .?thank you Suzi
Because France opposed his unification plan for Germany and had already claimed that Prussia and her Northern German Confederacy, after the victory over Austria in 1866, had become a thread for the french position as the leading power in continental Europe (after the Crimean war). Bismarck wasnt an emotional politican, he did not hate France as a country or culture. He simply wanted to prevent her from taking revenge for the defeat in the Franco- German war of 1870/71.
Wilhelm 2 the Emperror who obsessed by Successful British Empire who Reign by His Grand Mother Queen Victoria with successful colonialism and Strong Navy all over the world
How did Germany lack the global reach of others I heard that that region was the last to actually become a civilized country In fact those people lived in mud and grass huts in the wilderness while other civilizations flourished
Presentation is choppy and monotone and hard to listen to in order to understand what words are in the same sentences. Format is too short/fast to understand when one concept or event takes place and another aspect begins.
I think historians should acknowledge the contributions of women when discussing history. If it was not for women, all the politicians and military men in the world would have been naked and frozen on the battlefield. Try to fight a war in the winter when you have no uniforms and no socks. Women did that!
Probably not much, the axis were already losing when the US joined the war, even if they helped the axis it would take months to deliver any supplies to germany + the british fleet was still uncontested naval power at that time so, the US probably would lose more that it can contribute to itself
@@TheMaskedSam Actually it wasn't clear if the Central powers would lose. Sure they got pushed back at some points but that's not enough to concidere it "losing" As they could still counter attack and the Allies didn't have the power to make Germany surrender by themselves
Fantastic video. I am currently investigating Imperial Germany as background reading for one of my own projects and was curious about your take on Imperial German culture during this time? Its interesting that you've picked the years 1890-1914. Matthew Jefferies claims that 1870s-80s was an age of founding for Imperial Germany. I am currently under the understanding, that German nationalism did not take off until the 1890s onwards, primarily because indoctrinating your people with new ideology and unity takes time. Jefferies claims that by 1900s and 1910s, you have adults who have only ever known German nationalism, which in turn may provide one explanation for why they were willing to fight for the Kaiser. Weltpolitik may not have been successful had it not been for German nationalism. The cultural side of things is really interesting and i'll let you know if i decide to release a video on it!
*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? The history of the west I guess, in a five minute nutshell...
The Civil war wasn’t about “the poor slaves” it was the economics of slavery and the South’s desire to break away from the Union Once the issue of the Southern secession was resolved It was business as usual as Black folks were then enslaved by economics riots against them lynchings etc Sooo the “poor slaves” were better off in theory only😮😺
By 1914 Europe had divided itself into two power blocks. A circumstance often blamed on Berlin and especially on Wilhelm II. Two powerful "blocks": Germany/Austria-Hungary in a Dual Alliance (with the "sorta"-partner Italy joining later), and on the other side France/Russia in a military alliance with their "sorta"-partner GB. These two blocks are often conflated or talked about as being the effects of the same logic and reasoning, or even more fallacious, that the first logically lead to the second (causation). Only one was a result of necessity. The other was voluntary, without a real need. "However, the impact of these decisions [edit for clarification: effects of the Russo-Ottoman War of 1878] had serious consequences on German-Russian relations, as Tsarist officials blamed Germany for allowing England and Austria-Hungary to win major concessions at the Congress (edit: more on that later). And despite a long-standing friendship, the Tsar threatened a war of retaliation against Germany. This sudden crisis helped solidify the growing close relations between Germany and Austria-Hungary, and in October 1879, a defensive alliance was signed by the two German powers. This would prove to be the first alliance in the slow build-up of tensions leading to World War I." AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Kenneth Allen Shafer for the Master of Arts in History presented June 29, 1989. Title: The Congress of Berlin of 1878: Its Origins and Consequences *Bismarck had to act because of a specifically voiced threat (note: no "feelings" involved).* There was no choice. Re. the second "block": Some 20 years after her ill-fated attempt to torpedo Bismarck's German unification process with a preventive war (aka "war of choice") in 1870, the emotions caused by this war had died down somewhat, and Paris was given a "test" by Berlin's new management (Wilhelm/Caprivi): the choice between better relations with Germany (aka "rapprochement") as evidenced by a "New Course" in Berlin after 1890, or expanding her own power by an alliance with another European empire. Paris' choice was not quite unexpected. According to the "101 rules of empire building", states have the possibility to increase their power by alliances. And that is what Paris did the minute they were "released" from their political isolation. No sooner than they had found their "new friends" in St Petersburg, and the new power it afforded, than Paris indulged in a more confrontational course against British expansionism, including threats of war, in SE Asia (see 1893). The treaties made by Bismarck were not aimed at any expansion nor did it have an aggressive intent. Wilhelm took over these treaties in 1888 because they already existed. After 1890, Wilhelm II did not extend the Reinsurance Treaty because he wanted better relations with all neighbors: Russia, France and GB. The Reinsurance Treaty had stood in the way of better relations because it isolated France. Wilhelm ended this isolation hoping it would result in a "new course" (under Caprivi) with "simplified/better relations". Unlike the events leading to the Dual Alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1878, France/Russia were not threatened by the "Neuer Kurs" (Caprivi). The often claimed "German threat" by "nasty Wilhelm" was simply a convenient smokescreen for Paris/St Petersburg to hide their real intentions (ulterior motive). *So why did they ally, stating a very specific course of action for the event of an (entirely fictional since never threatened) "German/A-H mobilisation"?* Because such an alliance was "de facto" also directed against GB/Empire, and such mobilisations were only plausible in the event of an Anglo-German Alliance resulting due to better understanding between London and Berlin (potentially possible after a good start offered by the Helgoland-Zanzibar Treaty in 1890). Fact? Wilhelm never threatened either France nor Russia, but he did hope for a deal or an accord of sorts between Berlin and London, which aroused suspicion in Paris/St Petersburg. Christopher Clark devotes an entire chapter (with sources) as to how this unfolded in his book Sleepwalkers.
After this, you should talk about the Golden years old the Weimar Republic and how Streseman helped take Germany from economic and political isolation into a better place in the world.
Hey Alec! Stresemann is a figure I am fascinated by and there definitely will be a video about the Golden Years of the Weimar republic! It will probably be released around January, as I have plans to make a video about Hitler until his Bierkeller Putsch in 1923, a short history of anarchism, and a video essay about an old Soviet propaganda movie! Thank you for the tip! I will most likely start working on it somewhere next month!
Hi Alec, I'm curious... from whose perspective might the post-war period following WWI - the Weimar Republic - be regarded as Germany's "Golden Years"? For the average German, post-WWI was a period of languishing trauma marked by reparations-imposed austerity, inflation, currency-devaluation, depression, privatization, and increased (organized) criminal activity. Concerning the latter point, Berlin had emerged from WWI in the decade known as the Weimar Republic as the crime capital of Europe - many people who lost their livelihoods and possessions, or were required to sell property for the staples necessary for survival were required to turn to criminal activity, including prostitution, might regard the "Golden Years" as a period of turmoil. As foreign industrial capital investment descended upon Germany to take advantage of the depressed economy, so too did foreign organized criminal organizations. For nearly all populations on the continent, a generation of young men were taken from their families, resulting in economic hardship for the survivors. Post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a contemporary term, popularized in academic/medical circles following the Vietnam War - used to describe the psychological malady affecting both soldiers and civilian populations traumatized by war - that would have been no less pervasive following WWI than it is today. I could easily make a case that widespread societal PTSD was a major factor encouraging the German population towards nationalist-fascist ideology in the post-Weimar period. The decade of the Treaty-of-Versailles-imposed austerity following the conclusion of the war was capped-off by the Great (global) Depression in 1929. The post-WWI "Golden Years" in Germany would have been enjoyed by those whose economic fortunes had not been decimated by the cataclysm of war, or those who were not in a financial position to benefit from the depressed German economy. Certainly the cultural elite enjoyed a modern renaissance during this period; the majority however, suffered under the punitive economic hardship imposed upon the country by the victors. For the majority German population, the Treaty of Versailles only marked the end of military hostilities, economic plunder extracted by the victors as spoils of war would continue to punish the German population for over a decade - until the ascension of a rabid nationalist-fascist demagogue who re-militarized the German economy in the 1930s with the economic assistance of Western industrialists and financiers (i.e. Ford, Koch, Bush); without whom the Third Reich could never have re-industrialized. Similar to the contemporary phenomena of provoked Islamic terrorism; a cogent case can be made that Nazism was the West's Frankenstein. When one views history without the fog of propaganda, we can better predict the arc of future history. Regards, Munk
Interesting to see how similar modern society is to the past. Even today there is a struggle between traditionalists and nationalists against socialists and liberals.
Interesting. I never thought but the meteoric rise of Germany in such a short time could create an aire or belief that anything they put their hand to is achievable.
Hi Kristie, I've removed it because it didn't uphold to the quality standards I want for this channel. Here's a revised version: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DtJxeRhigeM.html
