Fascinating discussion. The argument by David Olusoga that German policy in Namibia would be a clear indication of German actions post victory in Europe is inflammatory and ignores that the British (and Canadians) erected concentration camps in multiple colonial wars, most notoriously during the Boer War 1903, complete with mass murder within. Sadly, as Adam Hochschild noted in King Leopold's Ghosts, which examined the brutal mass murders in Belgium occupied Congo ( conservative Belgian numbers estimatec12 million killed; others claim 20), the European continent treated African lives differently from Europeans. So David's concerns ignore the fact Germany was no more grotesque than Britain or Belgium. No European nation had a particularly elevated view of humanity as it pertained to Africa (or the Middle East). The reason? There was, at this time, the noxious belief of Social Darwinism which grew out of Darwin's theories of evolution, which posited the 'law of the Jungle' applied to cultures and race, and this noxious idea played a primary role in the mindsets of those who ruled Europe. You hear the phrase of 'The Sick Man of Europe' used to describe Austro-Hungarian empire, and the Ottoman Empire, which fueled fear among Europeans that one's nation could quickly find itself in terminal decline. This view gripped Russia and France leading up to the Great War. The Russians lost a disastorous war in, irony of irony, the Crimea and the Russo-Japanese War was seen as a huge 'upset' with a small 'Asian peoples' defeating what had been a major european power, Russia ( see Napoleonic Wars). France had been the dominant continental power during the Napoleonic era but by 1870, had lost to a 'small' European power: Prussia. So this fear/paranoia explains much of the mindset of the major rulers and why they acted the way they did. When it came to peace treaties, Europeans treated the vanquished European nations in a less annihilistic manner than in other parts of the globe. It is highly unlikely that pattern would be broken, even after a horrific conflagration like WW1. Germany is constantly seen as this 'monolith' of 'militarism' at the time, but that is a caricature. If you compare the number of wars Prussia/ Germany were involved prior to WW1, they pale in comparison to the wars the British were embroiled within across the Globe, as well as the French. The aftermath of these wars shows German leadership to be no better or worse than the British or French. Part of this is due to the fact the monarchies across Europe were all inter-woven: Kaiser Wilhelm was constantly communicating with his cousins, 'Nicky' and 'Bertie', in the lead-up to the War. The Kaiser was also struggling to control domestic socio-economic forces and his Chancellors are frequently more reactive than proactive. Bismarck himself tables the Social Welfare reforms within Prussia as early as the 1870s [ they are the first nation to do so] because socialism had wide-spread popularity and the Chancellor and King of Prussia could not stem the tide. Christopher Clark has noted in "Iron Kingdom" that the ruling elite in Prussia were 'running scared' by the forces of socialism and change within their principality. Marx and Engel were hoping for a German victory in WW1 NOT out of patriotism but for the simple fact that at least in Germany, workers enjoyed much better rights and collective rights than the workers in England who toiled under Dickensian conditions. In short, germany was much more socially advanced and egalitarian in many areas than Britain or France. Is a nation that brings such egalitarian social welfare reforms likely to be as draconian as David Osulogo suggests? Prior to the outbreak of War, the Kaiser outlined his philosophy for Europe and looked to America: a United States of Europe. But more directly, we do have direct evidence of how 'Prussian-led Germany' might respond in the face of victory and that is how the Franco-Prussian War concluded. Following 1870, when the French started their disastorous war with Prussia (over a telegram, it has to be noted) Germany took two provinces from France and financial compensation as punishment. Remember: this was the THIRD time in 60 years the German-speaking peoples had faced French aggression. Those provinces were German-speaking until the 1700s when the Sun-King Louie conquered them. Bismarck was against taking them but the generals insisted some symbolic 'reward' was needed to assuage the sacrifice of the soldiers /casualties received fighting France. This is said to have sowed the seeds of WW1 with Delcasse and Poincare agitating for a Revanchist War. Like most wars: the seeds are sown by actions taken in the previous conflagration. I hear many saying the 'mistake' made by the Allies in WW1 was not 'crushing' Germany completely so they knew they had 'lost'. Was Prussia then 'mistaken' in not annihilating France after the Napoleonic Wars and the Franco-Prussian War? Much is made about the invasion of Belgium by Germany. The British War Cabinet documents from the pre-war outbreak are unequivocal on this; Churchill himself suggested invading Belgium to avoid the ' meat grinder' fortifications and the Cabinet fully expected an invasion by Germany for the same reason and this, in and of itself, was not necessarily grounds for War. I think Ferguson is likely right: in the event of a german victory, their leadership would quickly be plagued by the impossibility of governing those forces which they themselves struggled to govern before the outbreak of World War 1: socio-economic reforms, multi-ethnic nationalism, geo-political competition with the UK, America, and Asia. I think he and Macmillan are correct in noting the turbulence for change was already beyond the control of the ruling elites, whether monarchical or republican, and the war only hastened the change.
I would highlight the point that people who have never made a "big" decision tend to criticise those who make who HAVE TO MAKE a decision and live with the consequences. In Ireland we call these people ' the hurler on the ditch' that is someone who cannot play a sport telling an elite sportsperson how to play the game. The other point I'd like to make is that the terms of Brest-Livotsk did indicate to me the German mind-set to a defeated foe.
I must say I agree with ferguson re. German ambitions, especially if you see document 123 from _Correspondence respect the European Crisis_ which was published just after Britain's declaration. It essentially documents the Foreign Secretary's important communiques including German ambassador Lichnowsky all but saying that Britain could negotiate Germany into not invading Belgium or annexing French territory in return for a guarantee of abstention from the conflict.
The German's were always going to go through Belgium to get to France. They basically admitted it in the telegrams sent to Grey from Goschen and Tirpitz confirms this in his memoirs.
@@bolivar2153 it is certain that the German high command was married to the Schlieffen plan, but the Kaiser was not, and nearly ordered the entire army away from Belgium to face the Russians, over and above the protestations of his Chief of Staff, Von Moltke. Given the nature of the telegram and events around it, I think any genuine attempt by Grey to negotiate (which was never forthcoming) would have at least delayed the incursion into Belgium, with the possibility of preventing it altogether.
@@swanner95 "any genuine attempt by Grey to negotiate (which was never forthcoming)" Grey was still trying to negotiate a mediated settlement between Austria-Hungary and Russia in the hope of avoiding war altogether (not just trying to limit a war). The Russians had agreed to it. France had agreed to it. Italy had agreed it and was prepared to chair the meetings. Two countries were declining the offer, Germany and Austria-Hungary.
@@swanner95 Germany was never offering not to pass it's army's through Belgium. The best deal on the table was "her integrity would be respected after the conclusion of the war". This is *_NOT_* the same as honouring her neutrality. Note : In both the Septemberprogramm of 1914, and the "peace offer" of 1916, mentions of Belgium included the annexation of Belgium or the installation of a pro-German government, effectively a vassal\puppet state.
@@bolivar2153 well I disagree, firstly the issue over the conferences was admittedly never going to end peaceably as the Germans wanted war and had given the Austrians the blank cheque. However this issue concerns the resolution to the issues over Serbia, which neither of them were interested in, particularly the German High Command who knew pushing the Austrians would provoke the Russians and get them the pretext for war with Russia that they wanted. That did not precipitate per se an invasion of Belgium to attack France. As for the issue of Belgian neutrality/integrity firstly Ferguson says in this video that the September programme may never have been published without British intervention let alone any 1916 arrangement, and I certainly believe regardless that neutrality could be secured even it meant in the post war. However, without an invasion of Belgium there can be no integration of it into Germany, which I still believe was possible, given that I'm still personally persuaded by the notion that the Kaiser couldn't walk his talk and would have been willing to leave Belgium alone if it guaranteed British abstention.
The UK should never have got involved in World War One. The war would have been over more quickly, far less French, Belgians, Germans and Russians would have been killed, and the UK would not have become a debtor nation. However, Grey probably wanted to side with the French because Germany had by then become a major power.
Allan makes a very good point about the British response being ridiculously small at the start, then following attack at all costs doctrine, and failing to make full use of the superior navy. I tend to agree with him on those points. Another good point about the parallels between death camps in Namibia and what the Germans did in Europe. And another one is the interwar years leading directly from 1918 to 1939...and she says what were people doing for 20 years? It wasnt a vacuum. Niall: "now that Im an american, im very offended"...
Of course, innocent Belgium's previous king and the colonial administration had just committed one of the worst atrocities in history proportionally in the Congo - over half the population probably died, and the use of torture, mutilation and other terror tactics by the Belgians was common. And what the British had for the previous 100+ years pulled in India...well...it's off the charts.
@@squamish4244 Youre comment is not good. It is almost totally irrelevant what we are looking at here with World War One against the 'Central Powers'. Looking at Leopold's shenanigans in the Congo Free State, and the later Belgian annexation, etc is a tangential topic unto itself. Not content with that you then also add British India...another vast topic, and one which requires investigation of the activities of other colonial empires in the region, and surrounding areas. I suggest you try and stick to the topic at hand, it is vast enough.
@@lieshtmeiser5542 Ooff. That one stung, didn't it? Because it's true. My point was a moral one, as you well know. It's perfectly applicable to the content at hand. YOU are the one who brought up the Rape of Belgium and German Southwest Africa, just as they did, and the hypocrisy of the alleged moral high ground the Allies stood on. So anyway - I'm sorry you had to face such things as 'facts'.
@@squamish4244 "So anyway - I'm sorry you had to face such things as 'facts'." People obviously dont disagree with you much do they. You were going off topic, in a huge way, and you have only doubled down on that, instead of remedying it. "YOU are the one who brought up the Rape of Belgium" In fact, I did not, YOU did. You have an axe to grind, and Im not interested in going off topic about Belgium with you.
Excellent video, great to see so many great historians on the panel! I have my own video on Niall Ferguson's point on "What if Britain Stayed Neutral in WWI?", check it out and let me know your thoughts!
We should not forget that in 1914 we had empires and kingdoms, emperors and kings. They wared for both profit and glory and weren't that bad at contained wars. Not always true but Germany did not seek to eliminate France in the Franco Prussian war. They just grabbed Alsace. Had Britain not entered WWI then perhaps WWI could have finished with another land grab off France.With the ante upped by Britain entering than all sides had to win big with consequential losses.
One estimate (using 1913 US dollars) is that the Allies spent $147 billion on the war and the Central Powers only $61 billion, but Germany concentrates the largest industrial conglomerate in the Rhineland region.  en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki Economic history of World War I - Wikipedia
Who pays for ww1?  Germany The Treaty of Versailles (signed in 1919) and the 1921 London Schedule of Payments required Germany to pay 132 billion gold marks (US$33 billion at the time) in reparations to cover civilian damage caused during the war.  en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki World War I reparations - Wikipedia
Ah!, Academia, so far removed by years in exile, and time spent in the ivory tower! Given that thin-skinned men are at the forefront of human society, fueled by insecurities heightened by circumstances, war has ALWAYS been inevitable.
