Britain allied with the Soviet union that slaughtered millions prior to the war, terrorized their populations and took over and imprisoned with communism half of Europe. This narrative lies by omission of Britain's major ally, the Soviet Union and its acts of agression against other countries.
David Reynolds - He is one of the world’s most acclaimed diplomatic historians, and a former winner of the Wolfson Prize for History. His voice gives drama and conviction to Timeline.
I like how this documentary acknowledges how malleable the past is, it's a work of reconstruction; it reminds us that we don't have direct access to 'the past' in some magical sense; history is not a record of the past it's an interpretation.
@@antigen4 This is a popular phrase and I want to challenge it because it gravely underestimates the problem. If this is true how then are we to account for the success of the published memoirs of the defeated German Generals after WW2? It seems to me that history is written by the defeated too. In fact history is written by anyone who cares to write it, but it is called into being by an audience and is, therefore, very much the servant of ever changing contemporary needs. History was once a narrative of political power exercised by the elite but as society democratised there was more appetite for a broader social understanding of the experience which included the 'common man' (emphasis on man). This has of course evolved into an even broader history which includes women (whatever next!). I think we experience a real need to understand the past since it informs and shapes the present, in the words of Albert Camus "history is like a rudder of a boat, although it lies behind us it determines where we are going". The need to understand the past and inform ourselves of what truly happened means that history written solely at the service of a narrow and exclusionary narrative will not suffice.
@@colin2709 well perhaps those 'published memoirs' served a purpose for those that write the larger history? who knows. If there is a more appropriate popular phrase please let us know. it seemed expedient at the time.
You have obviously been indoctrinated to believe that history can be rewritten. It cannot be. My grandfather was a real person whom I knew. He served in WWI, and I saw his medals. 20 million people died in WWI, which is something NO ONE could make up. They lost an ENTIRE GENERATION. that was the reason most of Europe did not want to get involved in WWII. Your comment is ridiculous.
What I've found matters most is what that touches us personally. My great aunt's husband was gassed in the trenches in 1917 and came home permanently disabled and died as a result of his injuries in 1923. While I never knew him as I was born 33 years after his death every Memorial Day we spent at my aunt's house as it was a day they truly would spend remembering those had passed on before us and as a result I still remember his pictures and the regimental photo taken before they went over to France.
@SURREY CROSSING This is actually the point the guy in the documentary makes at the end. What's the point of 'remembering' the dead when it does nothing to inform the present. Plenty of warmongering still going on that very few have anything to say about.
As a history buff, I came to the conclusion that WWI indeed was a seminal event of the 20th century and WWII was simply the second part of that war. Thanks for this great documentary, which should be titled "Part 1" of the series.
for the USA the Great War did not end with its sequel, WW2; there was the Korean war, the Viet Nam War, the other cold war flare ups, that all were, like WW2, the settling of scores resulting from a botched "peace" by the victors, especially USA, and to this day some of the lingering "scores" have still to be settled e.g. Korea, Japan's Kurile Islands, Taiwan and its offshore Islands of Quemoy, and Matsu, etc.
That's right somehow. WW1 was the initial catastrophe of the last century, WW2 was a result of it, and so was the cold war with its proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam.
Well, WWI actually brought the 20th century in Europe (ancient dynasties seemed to live in opulence while squeezing dry the wealth of the land of the people they had nothing in common with). It was a revolt the ruling class didn't think the ruled class dared to engage in.
My great uncle served at Passchendaele, Loos, and Salonika, but never returned. My great grandfather, who fought in the Passchendaele offensive, who had suffered the squalor of the trenches, undergone hand to hand trench fighting with the Germans, gone over the top on numerous occasions and survived the war, had the following brief views. World War One should never be called that. It should be called nothing more than a carnage, a sheer slaughter of good men on both sides. Most staff Generals were cavalry officers and dunder heads operating on old defunk tactics of a bygone age in a modern mechanised war. There were some exceptions, but in the main their solution to any problem was men, more men, more men, and yet more men, throwing lives away like glass bottles against a brick wall. The armistice was not a surrender but a twenty year peace, and round two was yet to come. Why could they not have settled it like this at the outset? After all of their sacrifice, the allied armies never marched into Germany at the end of the war, and the Germans took the view that they had never lost the war. If that had been done, then perhaps defeat would have been instilled in all Germans, and WW2 would have not have come about. And yet my great grandfather reported that the German soldiers were surrendering in droves well before the armistice. They were done. They had had a gut full of the war. The UK was supposed to be a land fit for the heros of WW1 to return to. Instead, after giving their all, they returned to nothing but unemployment, poverty, starvation, pity and a paltry veterans pension overseen by Haig who was supposedly 'going to make sure the men were taken care of'. What BS. Most war pensions were paid at a rate two ranks below that served in the conflict. That was their reward for having fought so courageously and valiantly in conditions so appalling that we cannot even begin to imagine in that stinking damn slaughter. Because of the Pals battalions, many streets were devoid of all their men, most of which had been killed as they had served, together. Some men talked, others not at all, but most would bottle it up and only let slip about their experiences on rare occasions, because the normal person could neither imagine nor believe what they had endured. Men without limbs, scared, men psychologically unhinged, men gassed. My great grandfather endured endless remorse for killing fathers, husbands, sons, sweethearts who had never done him any harm, tears streaming down his face recounting shooting and bayoneting old and young German soldiers alike, not to mention the loss of his own mates. For him, and many of the lads, the war never ended. They lived it day by day, even when they returned. And a final statement: In future leave soldiers and civilians out of war. If two monarchs want to wage war, put the gloves on them, and then put them in a boxing ring and let them sort it out between themselves. How was it that the Kaiser was allowed to live after this? Because he was the grandson of Queen Victoria? Why was it he, Erich Ludendorff and Paul von Hindenburg, who had presided over the atrocities of the German army, were never hung? Bloody mass murderers!
Your great grandfather **should** have felt remorse. He was on the wrong side. The Germans did (almost) nothing wrong in WW1 and the German Emperor was not in any way an evil man or a criminal. A spoiled man who wasn't terribly competent and who was very out of touch with the common man, sure. Blame France and Russia, blame the UK, blame the US. Blame Belgium for preventing Germany for letting Germany beat back the aggressive French fast enough to get the war over with quickly. Blame Serbia for starting the whole mess. But don't blame Germany. They were actually just defending themselves against foreign aggression.
@@peterfireflylund I would not go so far as to say that Germany was blameless. They did *choose* to attack a neutral country. Belgium. What is true, and what history tries to forget is that this was was planned for and desired by mainly France. The aims for the war parties were as follows: France: recapture areas the lost in 1870s to germany. Areas that before Louis XIV (IIRC) were not even french. UK: Eliminate the german fleet, for the strain of their fleet requirements was killing their economy (their requirements was to have a fleet bigger than the numbers 2 and 3). Italy: conquer the german speaking province of Tirol from austria Hungary, and the dalmatian coast. Russia: obtain ice free harbours, mainly access to the mediteranean from the black sea Germany: To keep their only ally, and survive their encirclement. Austria-Hungary: To stamp out the serbian state that had killed thier crown prince and wive and was instrumental to state supported terrorrism. Turkey: The sick man of europe: Survive against russia. they may also have had dreams of resurrecting the power of the ottoman empire on the balkans. Look at the aims of the parties, and from the aims, extrapolate who really *wanted* the war. Ever since the 1870s one of the main focus of French foreign policy was "la ligne bleue" (the blue line on the horizon of the hils Elsas-Lotharingen). Much of French foreign poilicy was focussed on isolating Germany and starting a new war on favorable terms for France. For this reason they started alliances with both Russia (a sometimes french ally) and the UK (a traditional french enemy). They did find a willing ear in Sir Edward Grey, who worked out details on Anglo-French cooperation in war. When questioned by parliament he would lie and deny any agreements were in place. Meanwhile there was a detailed timetable for moblilisation including arrival times for ferries from the UK and trains into france. He (Grey) did wish to pacify the Agadir crisis, but that was because he felt the UK wasn't ready. Lord Haldane was sent to Germany in 1912 to open a discussion on a naval treaty. If you read modern day recount you will read that it was a failed negotiation (encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Haldane+Mission+of+1912) because of "the profound differences between Great Britain and Germany". What is not told is that Haldane was sent to Germany with instruction from Grey that there would be no treaty.\ Pure windowdressing. Not to say that Germany did not go stupidly into the situation. To put the situation under pressure their parliament accepted a fleet building programme (which was financially impossible, but who cared). Part of this was posturing so they could easily make concessions in respect to this plan in the negotiations, instead of concessions in relation to the current fleet size. If actually fit british desire perfectly, for it gave them a legitimate excuse for not succeeding.
@@peterfireflylund - Repeat the lie of Germany as a peaceful, unfortunate victim of World War One often enough, and the sheeple will begin to believe it.
It's a really good doc. The only thing that's leaves me wanting more is he doesn't let you know his own view on it. Its more about, this is how people looked on it in the 1920s, here's an important play from the 1930s, here's how WWII lead to a changing view of WWI, here's the contrast between British and German attitudes in the 1920s. Its not till the final 5 minutes he starts to give his own view by rejecting the anti-war poetry and plays as the main lense we should view history through.
My great grandfather who fought in France all through (yep, an old contemptible) said the war was nothing but a giant blood sacrifice. He made no distinction between the two wars either. He said it was one with fresh young men reared for the second half. Being in the trenches, I think he needed to find a reason for it. Banks and blood were his conclusion...a giant sacrifice for a few greedy people.
I don't think it's that clear cut, but it was a bloody awful waste of life for...what? Two of my great grandfathers fought in the trenches. One of them manned a machine gun. I sometimes wonder how many men he killed, and how he lived with it afterwards. The curious thing was, he was a mild mannered sort of guy, not a psycho, not a born killer. I imagine he was fairly typical. How did this happen? I'm not sure there are any simple answers.
@@paulwhite6745 "One of them manned a machine gun. I sometimes wonder how many men he killed, and how he lived with it afterwards." Machine gunners rarely actually saw the people they killed, believe it or not. Their function was mainly to lay down suppressive fields of fire at ranges long enough that individuals would not be distinguishable. It was the WW1 equivalent of dropping bombs from 10,000 feet. Very disconnected emotionally from the business end.
The fallout of the war is what is important, it may have inadvertently sped up the rise of the USA and modern Liberal Democracy. 4 empires vanished and the other 2 went broke, Germany became a powder keg to start the next war and nobody cared.
One of the best history documentary series on you tube. It's refreshing to hear a british historian unbridled by xenophobia in this day and age. Very well done and I would like to see more from this historian in the future as he has a very independent and discerning viewpoint. Bravo.
A student of WWI, I happened on Journeys End in 2006 on Broadway. I knew nothing about the author of play. What a powerful statement!! The theater was packed! It was a New York theater going crowd. Most did not know much about WWI. But they love theater. It was serendipity!
I don't know where this stuff came from. Yes, I know it's British, and all that. But this sudden eruption of quality documentaries is very exciting, most welcome and for a documentary junkie like me, it's the surprise of the year. TIMELINE is BOSS.
Thanks, John. I gravitate to Documentaries, which do not violate copyright standards. I know a lot of people are getting away with posting their CD's. Perhaps "Frontline" "Nova" and "'American Experience" have official channels on RU-vid. I will look for them. Historian David Reynolds is satisfying my peculiar itch for that in-depth British perspective, in the vein of the great Richard Holmes.
As he says, anniversaries have media pay attention. But given that those who remember either World War are gone and their children are making many of the same mistakes, it is good to learn from history and look at it again.
@88Gibson LesPaul Reynolds, in his work, seems to be intent upon providing, most of all, the context of history. None better I've seen. Enjoy also, his droll British archness.
"...I speak of great heroic days, of victory and might I hold a banner drenched in blood, I urge you to be brave I lead you to your destiny, I lead you to your grave..."
I am an American and we'd never see this good a documentary on our tv. Most americans have no idea about history, much less WWI. I wish they would do something like this here.
Check Dan Carlin’s hardcore history podcast on the First World War. Argument could be made that the terrorist assassination by a seemingly nobody of archduke franz Ferdinand created the war on terrorism here in the 21st century.
My grandfather was a battlefield surgeon in France. Nasty business . Came back to Brooklyn and practiced (as a GP) for 45 Years. War shaped him as a man
Highly recommended: A book, "Report on the Medico-Military Aspects of the European War". It's a highly detailed account of the situation, in France in early 1915, faced by the French doctors and the wounded. Horrifying. Written by Surgeon A.M. Fauntleroy, the head of surgery at Annapolis, who was sent over to France to compile the official report (for the U.S. Navy), which was then published, later in 1915, for American military-medico people. The U.S. must have known even then that it would enter the war eventually.
Timeline really tells it like it is. More Americans need to see these documentaries, they show that to forget history we're condemned to relive it! The British aren't afraid to look at their past I wish a lot of Americans shared this trait.
As a presenter of history of the first half of the century, this man has few equals. He takes a broad overview and makes it obtainable to the many in a most paletable, comprehensive manner.
It was also stemmed on by the gigantic class division. The Russian revolution sparked fears in the aristocracy throughout Europe and workers were beginning to demand better wages in Europe and the USA
For the man who narated this video, may i say that there is a very true saying that upholds the idea that we should remember the fallen of ww1 as much as those of ww2, the saying goes" The day we forget the happenings of these two conflicts and the suffering caused to so many is the day we leave ourselves open to making the same mistake again. My I add that a look at todays effects of a war, only add more substance to being vigilant and making sure that nobody ever takes the world into such conflict ever again, but have the common sence to singal out those who would involve themselves in such action, and insist they carry out their wishes against each other rather than use everyone else to determin the rights and wrongs of their beliefs, let them learn what their actions mean in a very personal way, and leave the rest of the world in peace.
My maternal grandfather who immigrated from what is now the Czech Republic to the U.S.A. served 7 years in the American Army. He was sent to France in 1917 to fight with the Allies. Our family was very proud of him.
Prof. Reynolds is great. I've only been recently exposed to his television work. He is one of the few historians who has the gravitas and credibility to add his own editorial commentary to his TV presentations.
FACT: The Corfu crisis of 1923 wasn't successfully dealt with by the League of Nations. They tried to convince Italy to pull out, but Mussolini refused. The matter was settled by the Conference of Ambassadors, which made a separate agreement with Italy. True story.
This is one of the most interesting and insightful documentaries about the `world war century' I have seen. Tremendous research on both a broad scale and yet of the significant minutiae. It certainly helps to put both wars - and many social issues - into a focused and great narrative.
I never heard of David Reynolds before I started watching his documentaries on RU-vid. Every single documentary of his is superb - informative and fascinating.
Excellent. Great research. Some good comments below too, peppered as usual with unsupportable opinions and bias from those who think they know more. Appreciate the upload. Thank you
One can understand why Britain was so slow at rearmament between the warsand our reluctance to get dragged into another one The presentation is world class and the explanation and opinion superb I find this chap fascinating and enlightening thank you
Political figures often get bogged down in domestic problems and take their eye off foreign affairs. Stanley Baldwin was vilified once WWII started. It wasn't just poor equipment but also outdated tactics which cost Britain so badly between 1939-42. If you read Max Hastings WWII book he credits the British RAF and the Royal Navy as both performing excellently during WWII but he thinks the British army underperformed. Everytime it came up agaisnt German forces it was defeated and the losses to Japan in the far east shattered the confidence in the Empire, Signapore was captured by 36,000 Japanese troops agaisnt 80,000 allied troops defending it. He's also not a big fan of Monty and doesn't think he was much better than all the other generals Churchill sacked, he just had better armed troops and by 1942 the UK had two major new allies but Monty he describes as obsessed with his own self-image and his rivalry with Patton.
@@lw3646 I Believe that by the Time WW2 and the Fall of France and the Low Countries we were starting to see the rise of the Cult of Personality in the various Generals Field Marshals and Warlords ..Just as in today's society When the Media play up your Ego for Propaganda purposes and National interest ...Ancient Rome was little different in these respects i suspect But most definitely our Infantry Weapons and Tactics were Badly behind and the Army had a lot of catching up to do if it ever did with the Quality when compared to what the Nazis produced
Such a sacrifice that generation of young men made. Not only has todays youth completely ignored that sacrifice but cancel culture is even attacking the immortal words of Kipling.
20:10 - 20:45 Wow, that quote, perfectly mimicing Hitler's inflection was chilling. In hindsight, people point to him as a raving lunatic, but in the beginning. He had to convince, everyone, that they had been wronged.
He felt the same, betrayed, and recognized he could use that emotion to create a power movement, and Rode that mentality, expanding it with speech and imagery, leading that expanding group it to the End. His personal rage against the world became suicidal, as his favorite Wagner dramas all ended in death- in this case the death of national German superiority-over-all (everyone) ideology & culture.
@@RalphPhilbrook It really turns into an epic tragedy the more you look at it. In his unyielding desire to turn Germany into the world superpower with the "Aryan" people at the top he ultimately destroyed the entire concept along with 10's of millions of lives and a finally completely destroyed nation.
It's a really good doc. The only thing that's leaves me wanting more is he doesn't let you know his own view on it. Its more about, this is how people looked on it in the 1920s, here's an important play from the 1930s, here's how WWII lead to a changing view of WWI, here's the contrast between British and German attitudes in the 1920s. Its not till the final 5 minutes he starts to give his own view by rejecting the anti-war poetry and plays as the main lense we should view history through.
Point well made and taken. The war had to effect the century. We failed to learn the lessons taught in The Great War, and thus, we had WW2. Though, it's foolish to not admit that winners and losers see the war in the same way. Thanks for posting.
Absolutely brilliant. What a fantastic historian the great Professor is. His delivery is refreshingly captivating. All the more so when compared to that of some of his more egotistical contemporaries.
i think the main point was that we should not remember the great war as a romantic struggle or as something that had no meaning or impact. We need to learn and understand it as history. not as a drama.
Well done. It is interesting to see how each generation has remembered The Great War/The World War/The War to End All Wars/The Big One/The First World War. I wonder how WWII will be remembered a century later when all living memory of it is gone.
Depends on who wins the current civil war. If the Dems win it it'll be looked upon as the last capitalist war in which everyone who fought (except the Russians and Chinese) was a war criminal not unlike those who fought for the Confederacy. If the Reps win, it'll be (like today) largely ignored except for "X day" sales, picnics and other family whodahs.
@@indy_go_blue6048 Better the Reps who seemed content on letting the general public go about with how it is remembered than the Dems who will outright rewrite it in their image.
@@indy_go_blue6048 who are these dems you speak of? I don’t know a single democrat who views WW2 the way you suggest. You sound like someone who has absolutely no idea how dems think confidently trying to explain how dems think. It’s absurd
I expected a quote from Kipling's Epitaphs, "If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied" Comparing the poignancy in those lines to Kipling's poetry at the beginning of the Great War offers a clear picture of the spiritual wasteland the conflict brought into the 20th Century.
May I also highlight the detrimental psychological and physical affects the Great War had on numerous soldiers who survived the battles. Their families supported them for many years after the war.
Im Australian. My Granfather was in Gallipolli. Australia sent troops to the Sudan, Boer War, Navy to Boxer Rebelliin, WWI, WWII, Korea, Malaya, Vietnam, any UN parade, Iraq, the Afgahn fiasco, Timor. Upon reflection, I believe the only war we should have gone into would be WWII and then only un New Guinea and Timor in 1975, not the 1990s.
such a well done program, the period in between the wars is more interesting than the wars themselves. there is much to be learned, but the lessons are unfortunately ignored, only leading into more conflicts.
Many would like to see a handful of countries and leaders as being the cause of the 2 wars and they were the victims. The main cause of the Great War(s) was a power struggle that went back several centuries by a handful of Western European countries for world domination. Starting from Spain & Portugal in the New World and ended with Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, Germany and later Japan into the 20th century controlling more than half of the world's territories. The First War ended with the allies (including Britain, France, Belgium, Italy & Japan) as winners gaining more territories while the power struggle led into the Second War. The colonial race was partly to blame for the second conflict than simply the madmen in Berlin or Rome.
C'mon You tube. Such a great documentary and yet the close captioning is terribly off. He says 1914 the close captioning shows 1940. Um, pretty significant error there. He says battle of the Somme and it shows song. that's troll level funny but wow. It's been up for five years and that's the best close captioning? Throw another three ads in but don't bother to fix the viewers experience.
(4:10) The reality of warfare remained distant and obscure. So the British entombed the unknown horrors in grand monuments - memory was cloaked in remembrance. The architect's tomb was in effect an empty space onto which people could project their own memories and emotions.
I love David Reynolds narrative. He keeps me on the edge of my seat. I can't get enough of his videos. I couldn't help but note that in the close up of the poppies, that they are genuine opium poppies.
It’s certainly much more complicated than a simple family rivalry. Global trade, finance, modern industry, imperialism, old human habits, us vs. them, care to add some more? I believe there’s something in the human dna that allows and periodically causes these things. The Great War was a major turning point in our history. We really have to understand what it means if we are to move forward as a species.
@@kensurrency2564, you just about covered it all. Greed, money and power." The same reason why all wars were/are fought for. The rich and powerful sacrificing the "peasants" for profit.
I forgot to add that Kaiser Wilhelm II had a serious inferiority complex. One disfigured arm and a life time of hardship dealing with that, and at the same time being the heir to the throne. He had to overcompensate a bit. His diplomacy was known to absolutely suck. People still put up with him, for a while.
@@kensurrency2564 It brought down the old world of kingdom and country (tyranny) and helped usher in the new world of Liberal Democracy. This was in motion before the war, but the war greatly accelerated the pace by destroying 4 imperial powers and helping undermine the other 2. Communism was an unfortunate offshoot as millions of people fell prey to the idea of absolute equality without really realizing what that would actually mean. Most of the wars of the 20th century were the fallout of WW1, but as the leftover colonial bush fires ended the countries that have come out of the mess are more or less democracy's. Kaiser Wilhelm II was no different than any other monarch that has ever lived. Britain and France had the two biggest ego's in the world in 1914 and considered it a crime against humanity when Wilhelm II tried to challenge them.
In Verdun, where the battle lasted 300 days and nights, and killed a total of at least 2-3 million people, to conquer, at the end, a territory of less than 3km2, called the no-man's land. It took until mid-1960s, before a (governmental) cemetery for fallen German soldiers was allowed to be set up. This is Europe. One can go back in history to various empires and migration movements, to the Treaty of Westfalen, setting up the idea of national states (instead of classes like the Roman Empire), up to the Napoleonic wars, this war, the second world war, and of course, the Balkan wars of 1990s. I am a European, and we have no excuse for this slaughter of people and inhumanity (such as the Holocaust), especially because we are generally well educated and have access to information of various sources to allow us an independent and analytical thinking.
Poodles rock roughly 300,000 soldiers died in the battle of Verdun with another 400,000 wounded. It finished exactly where it started. No land or territory was gained or lost by either side. No man’s land was simply the area in between the two armies that no one occupied during the battle. As you can imagine troops had to have a certain amount of distance between them. My great grandfather fought in the Great War and I used to listen to him whenever he told stories about the horror of war never the honour. This was because he didn’t want me to ever go through what he did. Interestingly at least one male family member from each generation of my family has served his country going back to a time prior to 1066. My grandfather was in WWII my uncle in Korea my father Vietnam me in the Gulf wars my son in Afghanistan. I pray my grandson just goes to college and skip the whole killing people thing. I think my family has done its fair share.
Yes, I am a fan of Chris Hedges. His book of same title as this speech, describes so well the sacrifice that American soldiers and civil have endured since its Civil War. The stories, the shame, the image of a glorious war (to keep calm & carry on) from a generation to another. Do you have any references/sources to the first fake D-day landing where mainly Irish and Canadian soldiers were sent to slaughter in order to cover and prepare for the real thing?
In the early 1990s, I recall being in Munich, to make a flight to the former Yugoslavia and its genocidal war. Studying genocidal crimes and settling their requirements in justice, was my profession then and I simply could not believe that a simple hour flight or so from the prosperous, newly reunified Germany, there it was again, a European war of jubilant nationalism, mouldering mass graves and all that meant and will mean. Now there is war in the Ukraine, east and west, and several simmering possible civil wars in Europe and Europe again is racing to commit suicide by war, allowing democracy to be undermined in the name of profit as well as blowing up the postwar order guaranteed by NATO and the EU. God help us all. Not even a century’s peace in Europe after 1945.
What about the young men from India forced to conscript and fight for the UK ? What did the British do for them? The answer is pure and cold one word 'NOTHING'.
I would argue that at the moment no where else can the effects of the first world war be felt more than in the middle east. Yes it started in Europe more than a century ago but its repercussions are world wide until today
@Genesis1 Britain and France did not have interest in oil in the middle east, the USA was the largest producer in the world and oil was not that big of a deal just yet. They just wanted to divide the local populations to their liking, easier to deal with, plus they wanted easy access to their east Asian colonial outposts. Substantial oil production did not come from the middle east until the empires were in collapse.
The more I have learned of World War 1 due to it's anniversary, the more I have looked at as the World at War Part One and World War 2 as the World at War Part 2. Some of the same key figures and of course countries took part in both, so both of them really shoud be looked at as the same war, just different parts.
That isn't what they really want though. The capitalists want plenty of workers available (excess of supply over demand) to keep down wages and working conditions.
@@kiwitrainguy Who do you think went to fight these wars? The workers did. Half went to fight, the other half to manufacture arms to keep the war going. The entire war lived and died on the backs of the working class.
Official state memorials commemorated the dead and missing, but local memorials often commemorated those who served as well. The politics of commemoration is very fascinating.
The Great War is not really remembered in Germany . WW2 casts a too big shadow. Also his conclusion to let go of the dead I find quedtionable. Is it not rememberence of them that suppose to restrain us?
I think that Reynolds' main point in this piece is that we ought not be restrained. He seems to advocate military exceptionalism and power politics, and seems to hold remembrance in clear and obvious disdain. I find his views in this documentary to be rather horrifying and disrespectful, honestly.
I think the point he's trying to make is that we need to raise our eyes from the horrors of the trenches and look at the war in a larger context. In other words, not just to remember but to understand.
WW1 was considered to be the war to end all wars, and it was more or less the opposite. It was the war the century of wars began with. One of the reasons was that people only remembered without understanding.
Restrain? What restraint? there has been *endless* war, primarily initiated by the Allies, since the end of WW1. The only difference is instead of bombing our own cities we do it somewhere else...
The fact that Wilfred Owen's brother tried to simplify his legacy does not validate Reynolds' assessment. Nor does Owen's decision to return to the front. 'The Parable of the Old man and the Young' was written in the last months of the war. Owen may have been ambivalent about his own duty, religion, loyalty to his men and his country but he had no doubts about the evils of war and those responsible for it. "....When lo! an angel called him out of heaven, Saying, Lay not thy hand upon the lad, Neither do anything to him. Behold, A ram, caught in a thicket by its horns; Offer the Ram of Pride instead of him. But the old man would not so, but slew his son, And half the seed of Europe, one by one."
One changing dynamic British, and indeed most Americans fail to relate, is that post-Great War the USA was no longer technically an ally and there were issues that could have resulted in conflict. For example Britain's two navy standard for control of the sea could no longer be maintained as the country was in financial shambles due to the war, however the Americans were not only building a navy that would soon eclipse Britain's they were encouraging democracy and independence for some parts of the Empire and railing against Britain's colonial trade restrictions. Support, including arms and money, by private American citizens for Irish independence also angered many Britons. There were signs in the press and private circles that the same hostility that Britain ratcheted up against the Germans before WWI would be repeated with the USA. Some Britons believing the Royal Navy needed to be geared up for war against America, and given the high cost a Copenhagen type first strike needed to be considered against the USA. Of course saner heads prevailed, Britain would surrender dominance of the sea and accept parity with the USA at the Washington Conference, something that would have been unheard of in 1914. An Anglo-American Naval war in 1929 would have certainly put the world on another course altogether.
When we tell soldiers in uniform: “Thank you for protecting our freedoms,” we're essentially saying: “Thank you - I’d rather for you to suffer a horrendous death, your mother to lose a son, your wife to lose her husband and your children to lose their father, than for me to lose my pleasant lifestyle. As a matter of fact, there’s no limit to the number of soldiers I would allow to perish protecting my freedoms. But be assured, I will give all of you glory.” (If there is a limit to the number of soldiers you would allow to perish protecting your freedoms, what is it? If you had to watch each man die, at what point would you be sickened enough to surrender your freedoms rather than see any others killed?) Dead soldiers cannot see our gratitude because their happiness does not depend upon the attitudes, actions and circumstances of the living. Yet, for as long as we are grateful to them and remember them as heroes, rather than as victims of our lack of trust in God, we will continue to send the living to their deaths to allay our fears.
the great thing about life is there are many perspectives on all manner of things. you view that thank you to our veterans as you see.. i choose to see it as a thank you for your choice to uphold the value of your nation regardless of how it is ran. i personally do not need your thanks for my service to my country. however my belief in my country also tells me before you can vote or hold office of any kind you need to have served in the armed services.
What a great documentary but I was a bit upset in the last few seconds when he said, "it's about time we let go of the dead". We should never stop remembering them. Never. Yes the two world wars were horrible war but that's the nature of war. And I agree that war should be learnt from then placed firmly into the pages of history but to just forget those that fought and died??? We shall remember them. But not just British serviceman, we should remember every serviceman from every nation.
I don’t think that’s exactly what he meant, we should never forget however we as a country have not moved on from these wars culturally or politically and it is time we stopped defining ourselves by the armed conflicts of our past.
@@nousername123451 I agree. I think one reason amongst many (and I maybe wrong here) why we as a country have not moved on from the second world war especially is because of the 'blitz spirit', the idea that as a small nation we stand together more when our backs are against the wall. In today's climate, what with terrorism etc we draw on that when something happens. So many times I've heard people say that no one will make us crumble, we won't give in no matter what terrorists throw at us. Because we've got the blitz spirit.
I think that David Reynolds may have meant that for the British “‘it is time that we let go of (the memory) of the dead of WW1”. Those of us who lost family in WW1 cannot forget that fact. However, perhaps it is time to stop the remembrance services and public holidays for a war that ended 100 years ago. The Germans have forgotten WW1 and certainly have no remembrance services. We have long forgotten British soldiers who died in 19th century wars. Perhaps we should limit remembrance services to WW2 and cease those services after 2045, which is 100 years after the end of WW2. We have to let the memory go at some point,
To be fair, He did restrain from the " Lions led by donkeys " And by the sheer length of time that no soldier is around anymore that it has now slipped into the first stage of historical context
I think some of the lessons of WW1 were the unforeseen effects of militarism, nationalism industrialism, and colonialism. Europe was abruptly forced from their old-world colonial, agricultural, and mercantile economies, to those of industrial, urban, factory based, and increasingly ethnically-divided. Europe went from old to new, and they were not wholly prepared for the new.
72000 British soldiers MISSING after the Battle of the Somme. 55000 British soldiers MISSING after the Battles of Ypres and Paschendael. That's MISSING, disappeared, instantaneously vanished into a red mist. One second alive, extant. And in an instant, the blink of an eye, oblivion. No bones to bury, no remains to repatriate. GONE. +NEVER FORGET!+
Or one slip off a duckboard and they were sucked into a mudpool so deep that if their remains were ever given up they were unidentifiable... Unimaginable horror. Never forget.
Yousir Cantknow Er, no, it was the largest economy in the world already. Perhaps you mean that it had the world’s 16th-largest army? That’s more plausible.
These films should be shown to our High School Students as part of a required World History Class. I know I know, some High Schools no longer allow these Classes to be taught.
Some high schools don't allow history classes? Ok, it's nice you want to sound intelligent, but that's asinine. Timeline does pretty middle-of-the-road popular history subjects. Don't turn this into a way to fight some boogeyman establishment out there.. teaching.
@Doug Helsley 'propaganda' is simply the word which is used to describe the means by which ideas are propagated. It is misused by those who wish to pretend they are not propagandists.
Journeys end has been reenactment and remade many times but the 2017 film with Asa Butterfield was extremely good. The life of officers from families of priveledge was a stark contrast to the civilian men who waited it out on the front lines, used as "Acceptable losses" so very sad that class system.
Not quite. At least in the British Army, the highest death rates were suffered by junior officers, who were expected to lead from the front. Those were exactly the positions filled by the sons of the gentry.
@@mebsrea Yep. The officer class was heavily stacked with the "Gentry" class for much of the war, and they suffered the highest losses per capita. One of the most routine lines I have read in WWI histories when looking at an attacking battalion, is "all the officers were casualties". The poor dying for the rich trope I think is more applicable in modern conflicts, but in WW1 many of the upper class signed up and died. In comparison, there are very few cases were all the enlisted men were casualties. Officers had more privileges than their men (better leave, pay etc), but they also had a much higher mortality rate than your standard rifleman.
"It's time to let go of the dead"...I find that statement...immensely extenuating. Here's to men who murder their brothers to appease their enemies, may they spend eternity without rest. No more brother wars.
In Australia the ANZACs at Gallipoli are commemorated by young people more than ever. The public doesn't want to let the memory go. I would expect a historian to seek an explanation, not recommend a rejection.
My Grandfather was a WWI veteran; he was a sapper. I often wonder what it must have been like to have lived through the highs and lows during those times. He was awarded The British War Medal as well as The Victory Medal. He lived until 1977. I often wonder if he wore those medals with a sense of pride or whether he wore them with a degree of bitterness or survivor's guilt each Remembrance Day thereafter. Rest in Peace Grandpa. Velox Versutus Vigilans
We have already forgotten. If we didn’t, if we learned “the lessons”, then we would have truly backed the UN and never fought another war again. Now people think this war was fought for their right to express “freedom” bu not wearing a mask, by suppressing voters and allowing Murdoch media to educate us. No...we learned very little...
