The comments in Crash course world history videos: 33% Mongol memes 40% people who are asking others if they are studying for tests like them 27% actual discussions about history
What makes history so fascinating is that the events themselves can be interpreted in so many ways. You could find in the unfolding events an argument that pins the blame on really any of these powers. John Green here in this video did a great job of illustrating this.
In which John Green teaches you about World War I and how it got started. Crash Course doesn't usually talk much about dates, but the way that things unfolded in July and August of 1914 are kind of important to understanding the Great War. You'll learn about Franz Ferdinand, Gavrilo Pincep, the Black Hand, and why the Serbian nationalists wanted to kill the poor Archduke. You'll also learn who mobilized first and who exactly started the war. Sort of. Actually there's no good answer to who started the war, but we give it a shot anyway.
Lord Zephyros search AlternateHistoryHub on RU-vid. That channel already does videos like that, including what if the nazis won and if the Soviet union didn't collapse. They're really interesting videos.
I can't wait for the "how" episode. The more I study World War 1, the less inevitable it seems, the scale of it at least. The concert of Europe didn't have to die. Russia didn't have to join, if it just had stayed scared of Germany, balkan states were growing and diminishing all the time. Germany could have just Bunkered down in Elsass-Lothringen, instead of angering the Empire of the never ending sun. People could have had the intelligence not to board a ship transporting ammunition, when a freaking ambassador warns them. And most important of all, Franz Ferdinand could have hired an actually competent security detail.
Otto Von Bismarck said '' One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans'' he was reffering WW1 and he said that 36 years before First World War.
Robert Faber Yeah i know that,then the serbs and bulgarians got their independent. If Ottomans won the 1st Balkan War and then conquer them(Balkan League , there will be no WW1.
gtabigfan34 I'd disagree. The web of alliances in Europe had simply become too complicated by 1914; there was going to be a war at some point, regardless of what happened in the Balkans. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was not the cause of World War I, it was only the trigger. If the Ottoman Empire had won the First Balkan War though, or Bulgaria hadn't caused the Second Balkan War, the Ottomans would probably have stayed out of World War I, and we might still have had an Ottoman Empire today, which would certainly be a good thing to all those who like to see peace in the Middle East...
Robert Faber you're right Robert, if Ottoman Empire still existed today, WTC would not be attacked, or The Gulf War would never be happen or even WW2? Well,i think that's quite possible
gtabigfan34 well, like the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottomans were on their way out anyway. Their territory had been shrinking for centuries, and ethnic nationalism was only getting stronger. What MIGHT have happened is an avoidance of the chaos of the Sykes-Picot agreement, if Arab nationalism had carried on on its own terms rather than as a pawn of the British and French, and the nations had fractured according to realities on the ground. If you want an example of a middle eastern nation that determined its own independence without western "guidance", look no further than Turkey. While not perfect, it is leagues ahead of most of its neighbors who endured western monarchs followed by dictators. So we might have had peace in the middle east, but thanks to self-determination, not masterful Ottoman rulership.
So a guy killed a guy so that guys group of guys got mad at the other guys group of guys so they attacked those group of guys so the other group of guys call in their friend guy who owned a grouped of guys and then the original guy that got killed group of guys called in their friend guy who owned a group of guys so another group of guys also helped that other other group of guys so then the Original guy who got killed group of guys ally attacked a group of guys to get to the other other other group of guys but then another group of guys allied to those group of guys came in to attack those group of guys attacking there friends... So like that?
I just watched your video on being kinder online and although I never comment on youtube videos I thought I would do so today. This channel has helped me get through so many of my late night study sessions and has been the base of half of my essay's so for my act of internet kindness I thought I would say thanks for the easy to understand, interesting, and funny content. Side note, I also love your books. x
I miss going to school and my teacher having him as a way to explain us each topic and all of us would watch him. I mean I could learn this without a teacher, but it’s not the same and I miss my world studies class. The only class I liked tbh
What i learned from crash course: So archduke Franz Ferdinands death was due to a butterfly flapping its wings... The butterfly was the initial cause of world war 1 and eventually world war 2. Makes sense.
Little anachronism: The Russian battlesuit shown at 6:30 is a Rytsar Mk2 which wasn't introduced before April 1916. The Mk1 in use in 1914 had smaller shoulder guns, a blue "eye", and no extendable forearms.
Gavrilo Princip was the most influential man of the 20th century, not because he was an inventor or a brilliant mind but because the incident he caused had a domino effect that still affects the world today.
I think this marks the permanent point where I never again tread into the comment depths... Will I learn anything? No. Will I gain an expanded perspective? Not a good one. Will I feel better? Hahaha....
I really want to thank you guys for making this. I was having a breakdown while reading about the start of WWI and watching this made me calm, put things in order in my mind and even made me chuckle from time to time.
I love it when he talks about a month being a very long time. I've been a part of a '100 Years Ago Today' thread since the anniversary of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. My part has been to cover air and naval conflicts, and when you talk about history in hindsight it really does seem to compress, but when you're waiting each day for the next event to happen, you begin to really understand just how long it takes. It can actually become frustrating waiting weeks for what you know is coming. That doesn't make it any less entertaining.
There are so many nuances already in history and all of the additions you throw in as you speak so quickly is hard for my students to follow, but thanks for offering an entertaining venue.
THANK YOU JOHN GREEN. Crash Course is simply amazing! It's FUN to know why things are what they are today, it's FUN to gather knowledge you can apply throughout your life, it's FUN to begin to develop your own views and opinions instead of going off what others biased information imposes on you, it's FUN to feel like part of a community of people who want to make themselves better by being able to comprehend others, it's FUN to be EXCITED. Not only all is that giant not very eloquent run on sentence talk about the super fun things Crash Course gives us great, but it's honestly the very best thing to procrastinate from learning by learning. That sounds like a super strange sentence (probably because it is) but when I'm too lazy to put effort into homework I watch Crash Course and vlogsbrothers and my brain feels like a flowy mix of happiness because its always eating new knowledge. AND the new things I know conveyed by the incredibly hilarious and amazingness of Crash Course, leads me to other great things! I can watch The News with a fuller understanding, and The Colbert Report, and The Daily Show (which makes me super crazy happy!!!) LIKE IT'S JUST THIS HUGE POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP WHERE I COME OUT AS A SMARTER AND AWESOMER PERSON. So thank you. Not even the Mongols are an exception to this greatness.
+v1e1r1g1e1 "Greedo shot first this is the most important point in the series without Greedo shooting first there would be no star wars. Now let me tell you about this idea I have for the most important character who with out there would be no star wars cause he caused the star wars, his name is JarJar Binks"-George Lucas early 90s discussing the reissue with CGI
GenBloodLust I don't know what version of Star Wars- A New Hope you saw, but in the 1977 worldwide release, HAN SHOT FIRST! Anyone who knows anything about the series knows that George Lucas went all politically correct decades after and RE-CUT the first film to make it look like Greedo shot, and Han was only returning fire in self defence. Weasel-shit! HAN SHOT FIRST.
Although Austria's invasion of Serbia triggered the first world war, it is IMPERIALISM and NATIONALISM fused together that essentially caused this horrific event to happen. Starting from the 1870's, countries were becoming insecure and dependent on imports of raw materials. Only through the acquisition of colonies and search of new markets can this be achieved. Consequently, this led to the rise of conflicts between European powers. Austrian and Russian rivalry for the control of the Balkans is a perfect example that illustrates how imperialism contributed to the formation of a competitive and anarchic international environment. As a result, this prompted the formation of the Alliance system and Militarism which only worsened the building tensions in Europe. This chaotic environment was what allowed for World War 1 to happen. Each crisis in Europe, one by one, increased the chance for war. It was becoming inevitable, and it was only a matter of time. By 1914, countries could no longer refrain themselves and thus initiated the first world war. Not considering the long term causes is ignoring the true causes of the first world war.
An oversimplification which ignores the fact that as Bismarck pointed, with rare exceptions, colonies tended to cost more than they made for the imperialistic power (building and maintaining infrastructure, fortifications etc). Plus the agreement between Britain, France and Russia was informal, with the British especially suspecting the Russians (fearing Russian ambitions towards British India, one of the few money making colonies). It only became a firm alliance when Germany invaded Belgium, which the British saw as a threat to their own security.
***** That is only true for the nations which came late in the game, and got the scraps left over after others had had an early start. It was not only the resources of colonies, but also the strategic location (geostrategy). The late starters like Bismarck's Germany therefore got large swathes of land with little raw materials, and little strategic value, making the massive investments a one-way long-term loss. Money was poured in, but almost nothing came back as a result. Other countries were luckier, because getting that early start meant they could choose the cream of the crop, and their investments paid off far quicker. Often, a war fought to gain a territory, as often happened in the initial stages of colonialism, cost far less than the adversary had already sunk into the development of a region. That made the few hundred or few thousand dead soldiers an investment "well worth it" for the elites.....
Technically it would have just been Austria hungry and Serbia going against each other but the leader of Russia chose to help Serbia which caused Germany to join then a chain reaction started
Russia was ready to fight but wasn't really in the state to fight because they weren't very industrialized then Germany got them to drop out then thanks to Lenin the Bolsheviks took over then bam the Soviet Union... That's one of the reason y Russian wasn't at the treaty of Versailles because the allies hated them for dropping... Y am I explaining all of this I just realized that
so few things germany said from the start that austria can do whatever they want bcs they would protect them from russia and russia had to help serbia bcs austria would detsroy us(im from serbia) and there s a big historic relation between russia and serbia both being slavs and the fact that we r both ortodox led to russia defending us not to mention the dardanele s are important for russia to control so she had to make sure balkans were on her side
Der Kaiser ah how do i explain this to you at the time russians and serbs were like brothers given the fact that we r both ortodox and have same origins so much so that in ww1 russia didnt want to help france and uk if they didnt send their ships to transport serbians soldiers into greece so even tho serbia and russia didnt sign any treaty there was one
+Der Kaiser no it didnt brole any law bcs in that time there wasnt any law and even if they did broke the law who cares russia warned austria and germany what would happen but both didnt care so its their fault
Is more that Oil, I think Israel interest play there, plus many of the dictators are from the cold war with Russia. Oil is a big reason but not the only reason.
Yes and he also edited out the pauses between sentences, which is even more annoying! I don’t know why RU-vid channels nowadays think it’s cool to do that.
cangjie12 Especially when you’re watching the videos to learn things! I’ll watch videos to help with my science classes, and they just talk literally as fast as they can.
I don't think it would have happened at all, at least not in the form that it did. I feel that there may have been a war between similar powers, but it wouldn't have happened so quickly and globally.
what would happen can always be argued but as far as I see, the answer is: Yes, WW1 would still happen even if the arch duke was not assassinated. Reason to why I believe so is: -By the time WW1 started all "civilized" nation have already enter the industrial era. This allow each nation to mass produce in a rate never before seen in history. And how would a nation feel if they have massive surplus of food, fire arm, and people? Untouchable. -You have to remember that why it turn out to be a world war. Reason is simple. There is not a single powerful nation in Europe at the time, that has yet picked a side. With all the alliance going on. Both side feel they are "safe". Just like the Idea of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). If both side know what it means to go to war, then logical conclusion would be, no one want to wage war. But as we all know... that was not the case... -Lastly as John Green had mentioned. Austria was looking to take over Serbia. The death of the Arch Duke was only an excuse. Even if Duke did not die, or get shot. Austria would still attack Serbia regardless. (only difference is: the war might have started years later after the the center power gain more allies in both quality and quantity) But as I said before, what could happen can always be argued. But the root cause of WW1 is still there. Arch Duke's death was only an excuse. Think of it as the spark that set off a huge load of gunpowder.
It would of happened anyway , even if he died , he was just a reason . like Hitler who burned the Reichstag to blame it on the communists. Austria wanted to expand south to the sea , Russia declared war after because Serbia is an allay , yes , but also because they wanted to strech down to the South to the sea as well , it was all about territory.
+BPN 28 I can agree with you there mate it's just some people don't really like seeing the confederate flag for 2 reasons 1. it represented a group of people who burned and beat people based on the color of their skin and 2 It also a reminder of how stupid every single american was during that time and should probably be forgotten
A crash course on the breakup of Austra-Hungary, the how and why, and overall the structure of the Empire, how Habsburg lands developed into Austrian Empire and then the dual monarchy. Basically a crash course on that part of Europe would be much appreciated as it was a big part of European history, and is pretty complicated to understand now.
If you want to write a what-if history essay, I think the what-if Franz Ferdinand has not been shot is a great topic. Leave out the World War I take on things and focus on the Danube Federation which he hoped to establish in a final attempt to save the Austro-Hungarian empire. Ultimately I think WW1 was inevitable, nationalist jingoism and fear between countries was at a height. However, the main reason for me is that WW1 was an awaking for more than just colonial subjects and the birth of mass politics, those two forces were the real end empire and absolute monarchy/Prussian constitutionalism. It is in these awakening and these new ideas that makes me think WW1 is probably the most important period in history.
I just wanna get into AP History ;-; but I've never had history in my school.... so I'm at a disadvantage but I'm still gonna do it!!! Wish me luck (only a few spots left for AP History)
France was a bigger deal than Russia in 1914... Imperialism granted France an Empire, and Russia had just proven it's military inadequacy by loosing to Japan in the Russo-Japanese war...
Mr.Green, Mr.Green you should do a crash course on Yugoslavia most notably the wars for independence and democracy i mean WWI started there you can also talk about the fall of the last communist bloc in Eastern Europe it is a very interesting subject i think a lot of people would enjoy... it is very important world history and also another Look at communism because Tito's socialist government thrived especially sense he was allied with democratic USA and banned from the Communist party even though he was a communist as i mentioned it is a very interesting subject... Please thumb up so CrashCourse can see the comment :o)
It would be amazing if Crash Course did a series on Yugoslavia but it would also be immensely difficult and no matter how well they made it, it would be insanely controversial. Shame though - would be a great project and you could involve historians from all of the successor states in the writing... But it would be so hard to do well.
why do you say that? i mean they do have a pretty dark history in recent years with Milosevic, Karadzic and General Mladic during the 90's wars which is pretty much the whole cause of the conflicts but if you look further back all the parties on the balkans have a dark history...
going to have to agree with you on this you are 100% right but history is history it has to be written the way it happened you cant only choose the bits and pieces i really hope all the people in the balkans can one day look past their differences but it is very difficult when during WWII close to a million Serbs were killed by Ustashis and in the 90's Hundreds of thousand of Muslims by Serbs... dont even make me go further back
History is about picking bits and pieces... That is how history is written that is why you have so different accounts in different places. In history you either have too many or too few source, but either way you never have the right ones. It is the story of humans and as such cannot be objective (if you disagree the please look up the definition of objectivity). I had a wonderful lecture some months back from a guy who travelled the Balkans. When he started talking about the difference in historical perceptions in the region (Alexander the Great apparently had about 5+ different home countries) it was clear to me that WWI had changed nothing, And my own experience (one of my close friends is Greek and I recently was in Belgrade) have done anything to change this perception. Peace is just a slow way of cutting your enemies throat... The only way to know you did a video so specific on the Balkans right, would be if as a result everybody from the Balkans unsubbed immediately. When they all equally want to kill you, then you know you have discovered the truth. That place is awesome :)
Thank you so much! This video was very helpful in my opinion. You really should make more videos just like this. They always tend to help me out a lot in my college course (U.S. History). History class was never really my thing, even while in high school. Once again, thank you very much for this informative video. I love the humor that you have with it as well. Humor makes videos more fun, because this makes it less boring and very easy to pay attention to.
Speaking of alternate history. If WW1 hadn't happen, WW2 wouldn't happen, and the USSR wouldn't happen, and the cold war wouldn't happen. And probably Putin wouldn't happen, since there would have been no USSR.
Nope, simply a fascist dictator would have taked over England or France and iniciate WW2. Also, the USSR would happen because they signed a peacy treaty with the Kaiser.
diego acosta The USSR happened because Russia entered the war, used disastrous tactics against the Germans that killed millions of its own soldiers, which lead to resentment back home, which allowed the communists to take advantage and launch their revolution/coup. So if Russia didn't go to war in the first place, then the USSR might not have existed.
Don't forget Japan. Even without WW1 Japan would have lobbied for racial equality and was yearning to become the dominant power in the Pacific. Japanese officers were trained since 1904 to anticipate a war with America in the Pacific, and the entire Japanese mindset was that America was the only nation powerful enough to stop it from building an empire. So even without WW1, at some point things would have sparked between the US and Japan and some conflict would have started in the Pacific. Which is half of WW2 anyway. And that could have led to a Cold War between Germany, Britain and the US in the long term, since they were the three biggest industrial giants and of military capabilities. Which all could have been worse, theoretically.
I would say WW1, in some form, was probably inevitable. Too much built up tension, too much nationalist friction, too many conflicting goals between nations, and too many leaders thinking war had become a good way to achieve their goals. If WW1 goes differently like Russia someone stays out entirely (unlikely) or gets out sooner (ex: Kerensky govt from the February Revolution doesn't keep fighting, thus less opportunity for Red October and the Bolshevik takeover) then maybe no USSR. If Germany isn't punished so severely (or doesn't lose at all) then no Hitler. If France loses to Germany, especially if there is a punitive peace treaty (likely), then its quite likely we would have seen a fascist France - possibly even one that murdered Jews (Dreyfuss affair anyone?). Though they won WW1, France still had monarchists and fascists in 1940, and wasn't completely sold on that whole "republic" thing. That's one of the reasons they were okay with Vichy France. A Pacific War between the US and Japan probably IS inevitable, regardless of what happens in WW1 and regardless of whether there is a larger WW2. There was just too much conflict of interest and Japan was too willing to wage war for empire.
Yeah placing the mini characters on a field of calendar was a great idea, the way they had illustrated and animated that portion made it all easy to follow. And it was kind of a nod to the Cosmic Calendar from Cosmos.
It wouldn't have matter if Franz Ferdinand got assassinated because Conrad the leader of the Austrian Hungry army wanted to go to war with Serbia and was likely to go to war any way wether Franz Died or not.
ShelbyRay It just gave Austria-Hungry a good reason to go to war. The thing is. Russia said if Serbia was to be attack they will aid Serbia and Germany said if Austria-Hungry went to war Germany would assist them. Then Germany tried to take France during the time so countries took sides.
AH wouldn't have been able to issue the 4 point ultimatum to Serbia without the assassination, thereby not giving them a legitimate cause for war. Regardless of alliances, declaring war without a reason tends to burn bridges.
The entire Austria-Hungary didn't like Franc Ferdinand, they planned to overthrow him. But then Gavrilo Princip got in the mess and us Serbs were blamed. Yay.
It's not like Franz Ferdinand was the one guy that repeatedly stopped Conrad from starting the war, and it becomes even worse considering Franz Ferdinand was a good guy, the reason gavrilo got his chance was because he decided to go to the hospital in which the wounded of an assassination attempt on him were being treated.
garrywarne1 Not necessarily though the Bolsheviks were quite ruthless, it started with the best of intentions but failed when Stalin took power (something Lenin really didn't want to happen) and Russia became a dictatorship in all but name. Marx had only ever envisioned communism working in a civilised industrialised nation and sadly Russia at that time wasn't either of those things. Too many people think Stalinism, Maoism and whatever the fuck you call the dictatorship in North Korea as forms of communism, they are not, they are just dictatorships swaddled in a red cloak. The Russian Civil War is an interesting and very bloody war that involved many of the countries that had just fought WW1 and it would be interesting to see a video about this and how it affected the revolution and possibly led to it's failure and the rise of Stalin.
Samuel Smith Such a video would have to cover the following: - How the Bolsheviks came to power via a coup (aka 'The October Revolution'). Overthrowing the Provisional Government which, broadly speaking, wanted a Western Liberal style democracy, although probably a bit to the left (in fact, its leader, Alexander Kerensky, was a socialist). - How the Bolsheviks received approximately 24% of the vote in the democratic November 1917 Elections of the Russian Constituent Assembly (compared with the Socialist Revolutionary's 41%), before having the Red Guards dissolve it on its first day. - The Russian Civil War, which was responsible for the deaths of almost 3,000,000 people. Even following the disastrous and costly Russian involvement in WWI, and in spite of the Bolshevik's pre-October Revolution promises of 'Peace, Bread and Land', Lenin actually wanted a civil war as it gave him a perfect opportunity to eliminate his political opponents. The Red Army (which had replaced the Red Guards), used to win this war was effectively a return to tsarism. It was led largely by ex-tsarist officers and death penalties for desertion and disloyalty. The Bolsheviks' war conduct was exactly anticipating the Geneva Convention either, one particularly noteworthy example of their brutality can be seen in the options they gave to defeated troops: be conscripted into the Red Army or be executed. In response to the civil war, the Bolsheviks instigated what was known as the 'Red Terror', which was authoritarian and anti-communist through and through. Trotsky for instance, upon ending independent trade unions, forbidding workers frm negotiating pay and introducing punishments for failures to meet targets, declared that the working classes "must be commanded just like soldiers". - The disastrous policy of 'war communism', consisting primarily of Bolshevik nationalization of industry and requisitioning of grain (prodrazvyortska). This policy saw gross economic production halve between 1917 and 1921 (when war communism was abolished). Worse still, the policy of grain requisitioning was (along with mass conscription and the loss of 'bread-basket' Ukraine in accordance with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsky) responsible for a famine that resulted in the deaths of six million people, since most peasants refused to grow a surplus if they knew it would be requisitioned anyway. Not that this bothered Lenin, he used it as an opportunity to destroy the church in particularly affected areas (“in the starving regions... we can (and therefore must) carry out the confiscation of church valuables with the most savage and merciless energy”). Additionally, the Bolshevik government used the non-existent class of 'kulaks' - well off peasants who were apparently hoarding grain - as scapegoats for the famine. One particularly disturbing example is that of Lenin's Hanging Order, from 1918, which orders the public hanging of "no fewer than one hundred known landlords, rich men, bloodsuckers" with the purpose of frightening the populace. - That the only way they managed to get out of all of the problems associated with war communism was with the essentially capitalist New Economic Policy (NEP). The NEP was controversial even within the party itself, with a figure no lesser than Trotsky describing it as "the first sign of the degeneration of Bolshevism", believing that the squeezing of the peasants under war communism (i.e. famine) as essential to the revolution. All of that without even talking about the anti-democratic origins of the Bolshevik Party, the Cheka, or the Worker's Opposition and Kronstadt Rebellion.
garrywarne1 1)Provisional Government was not democratic, it was not elected, and did not answers of the aspirations of 95% of the population 2)Bolsheviks really gave land to the peasants but only 10 years 3)White forces strongly avoided the question of land for the peasants in their political progamma 4)What determined their defeat in the Civil War
My history teacher always makes us watch his videos in class when we start a new video and he once said "he super rich and he still wears shirts like that" something along those lines. And now I can't stop thinking about it.
Who else thought for a moment, looking at their feed, that this was the new Extra History? Not that I mind, but this is exactly the topic of their next episode too.
I love everything that this guy does, I love his books, and we use these world history videos in my online class, and his US History videos in my US History class in school
I imagine that could get boring. New objective: don't die during 6-hour shelling Repeatedly press B to stay low New objective: act as cannon fodder in attempt to capture 10m of land New objective: fall back from positions your previous character and 500 others died for yesterday New objective: don't die of disease New objective: don't die in another 6 hour shelling. Mash X to stay sane.
Could you imagine the people who fought in WW1, would they want a video game made about a tragedy that lost millions of lives. I don't think making a shooting game about it would be very appropriate
Why WW1? Step 1: Forget everything you know Step 2: Look at a map of pre-WW1 Europe. Step 3: Notice the location of Serbia Step 4: Assert that Serbia (and Romania) formed a barrier. Step 5: Remove the "barrier" of Serbia, and one gets a "land bridge" between Germany and Austria-Hungary on the one side, and her potential allies of Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire on the other side. Step 6: Deduct that some powers wanted this "land bridge", and other powers wanted to avoid it... Now, guess which powers wanted that land bridge, and guess which powers wanted to avoid it. "History" is so simple, if you look at maps every now and then :-)
This is the most reasonable explanation, but it is not mentioned in the video at all. Instead, the blame is put on the assassination which could have been politically influenced from any side.
+Filip Vranesevic well the alliances enabled this outcome. Germany - Austria/Hungary Russia - Serbia 1.Serbian duke assassinated 2. Austria screams at Serbia that they will invade 3. Germany backs Austria with their alliance. 4. Russia says Fuck no you touch Serbia and you will face our wrath 5. Germany declares war on Russia and France 6. Germany make their way to France through Belgium which pulls in Britain. The rest is history.
rochey1010 Actually no. The alliances were all defensive in nature. That means, that there was no formal obligation for any nation to go to war, if an alliance partner acted aggressively.
Wait explain that. The alliances were defensive? So Germany offering Austria that blank cheque of support if war happened was Germany WANTING war. So then Germany started WW1 right? It was pushing for Austria to invade Serbia and Russia was like Fuck that. Ergo in my mind Germany holds the most responsibility of WW1 happening right?
rochey1010 Yes. Some German warmongers obviously wanted Austria-Hungary to crush Serbia. That would have resulted in a 3rd Balkan War (there had been two before that) Why do you jump from that to "Germany starting WW1"? All the other nations had the choice to stay out of this local conflict (Serbia vs. A-H). Since there were no legal obligations, these decisions were also voluntary.
Tomorrow is our periodical test in Araling Panlipunan(World History) WW1, WW2, Cold war, Ideology, Neocolonialism, Organizations And this helped me a lot
i find it crazy that many people from different countries around the world thought the same thing, WW1 vibes...... i think nuclear weapons are the reason WWIII didnt start yet....no one want that kind of war
Owen M Yeah there certainly was more whites. Which is (ironically) accurately shown in the campaign. However, funnily enough, going back to your first comment, the German Wehrmacht employed 30,000 Africans and 250,000 Arabs in the North African Campaign. Of course, most of these men ended up rather dead, and were vastly outnumbered by Germans, however.
By coincidence, this was my next one to watch today, November 11, 2022, the 104th anniversary of the END of World War I, as I was going through the World History 2 playlist in order, one video a day, when I have time to watch..
IKR? It kind of bothers me that everyone suddenly learns history for an FPS game set in the past, and afterwards just forgets the important history smh...
His point at the end about how we don't how our decisions now will affect the broader future is very scary. Like we could be a week, month, or year away from a major war because of something that did or didn't happen yesterday or today.
Germany was beginning to threaten US Shipping to the British Isles, this combined with reports of German Atrocities in Belgium had the US break its neutrality to side with the Entente.
G33KST4R Also because we were selling guns, like we always do, and then they owed us money, and we didn't want the money to go away. Also, the Germans sank the Listutania (on the way from USA to Britain) because they said it had explosives for the war (it did) but was disguised as a passenger ship. Americans died on board and we got mad.
***** The sinking of multiple Civilian and trade ships and the Zimmerman telegram intercepted by British intelligence asking Mexico to join the war in exchange for old territories lost by the US such as the West coast and Texas angered the public to go to war. It wasn't for the sake of war rather the need to survive and in a war that will change the world as they once knew it.
The Lusitania had nothing to do with Wilson's declaration of war despite so many saying so. When President Wilson went to congress to ask for a declaration of war, he gave two reasons. - The first was the Zimmerman Telegram which was "intercepted" by British Intelligence (although some think that they faked it to draw the US into the war) - The second was Germany's failed promise of unrestricted submarine warfare. This is mistakenly referred to the Lusitania but it was actually a French ship called the 'Sussex' that was damaged (but not sunk) and resulted in Germany making the 'Sussex Pledge' which was to not sink Passenger or Merchant ships unless they was reason to believe that they were a threat. e.g. they had weapons for the troops. Germany broke this pledge angering Americans (who the pledge was meant to appease in the first place)
