Wilhelm II of Germany

Please visit our new site for the serious history enthusiast: www.historyroom.org

This is an excellent documentary on Wilhelm II which will be very useful for students of the Great War, German nationalism and German history in general. Uploaded for educational purposes only.

Татаж авах

Үзсэн тоо
1,709,176

Сэтгэгдлүүд

  • You might also be interested in a new paper I recently published, available direct from Amazon. Simply search *'How socialist was National Socialism'* in the Amazon search box.

    The History RoomThe History Room4 жилийн өмнө
    • Thanks to all of you ,or talk of my family , and royal family of my opaque Jan Christian will helm. Thanks so mas.

      Johnny silvaJohnny silva6 сарын өмнө
    • I am leaving you are talking my royal family will helm 2 ,and more.my op whose the Jan Christian will helm. And thanks so mas.all of you.

      Johnny silvaJohnny silva6 сарын өмнө
    • @Hiroki Dabar You having issues is the issue

      Andrew GardenerAndrew Gardener6 сарын өмнө
    • @Ninoca P Yes it was

      Andrew GardenerAndrew Gardener6 сарын өмнө
    • @Hiroki Dabar You need to drop the Swastika and grow out your hair .

      Andrew GardenerAndrew Gardener6 сарын өмнө
  • That was vary interesting!

    sunny rowesunny rowe4 өдрийн өмнө
  • Wilhelm sounds like a right prick

    Christy DownsChristy Downs5 өдрийн өмнө
  • Excuse me I think you mean me. I am the next of kin.

    Elijah Taylor.Elijah Taylor.5 өдрийн өмнө
  • This is a Kaiserphobic documentary

    TobiTobi6 өдрийн өмнө
  • to keep zie peace in da verld vee haff to invade it,

    Tom KellyTom Kelly7 өдрийн өмнө
    • @Bolivar Scroll down to 5 months ago to my comment starting with: "Bismarck's Reinsurance Treaty is often stated as an example of wise diplomacy, in order to avoid "great war"-scenarios, by creating (de jure) deadlock situations."

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard27 минутын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard Well, Britain knew about it by 1907, but that's irrelevant. It's secrecy changes nothing about it's contents.

      BolivarBolivar28 минутын өмнө
    • @Bolivar When was it made public?

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard30 минутын өмнө
    • @Bolivar "most secret"

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard31 минутын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard There is no "secret clause". The whole damn treaty was "secret". Really... you're not the sharpest crayon in the knife drawer are you?

      BolivarBolivar40 минутын өмнө
  • On the eve of the Great War in 1914, it was in no way apparent, that the mighty and colossal Pax Britannia, the “Empire on which the sun never set”, was rotten to its core and in terminal economic decline. In 1899 the British had fought a war with the aid of Cecil Rhodes, an eccentric British mining magnate, in order to wrest control of the vast gold riches of the Transvaal in South Africa away from the Boer settlers. South African gold had given the City of London a new lease on life. Rhodes and Milner and an elite circle of Empire strategists founded a secret society in 1910 whose purpose was to revitalize a flagging British imperial spirit. They called their group the Round Table, a reference to King Arthur’s medieval table surrounded by his select knights, and gave their magazine the same name. The Round Table also wanted to create a Cape-to-Cairo confederation of British colonies to dominate the mineral-rich African continent. They saw Africa as the key to future British global hegemony. The Boer war dragged on for 3 bitter years and England’s nominal victory in the end was pyrrhic. It demonstrated to the entire world that the mightiest Empire on the earth was unable to defeat a small, inferior fighting force determined to defend their homeland, a lesson the American elites were to learn bitterly in Vietnam in the 1970s. In the end, the Boer war was as devastating to Britain as the Iraq war would be for the United States a century later. The Boer war was a watershed that began the long decline of support for the Imperial idea in England. ***Two rivals for England’s global role At the time England was showing signs of terminal decay, two potential contenders emerged, at first imperceptibly, as challengers who might fill the role of the British Empire. One was the German Reich, the other was the United States of America. While few among the German elites thought of surpassing Britain in 1900, Germany’s industrial growth, its educational system and its science were already leaving England far behind. Little remained of England’s power except the role of the City of London as dominant over the terms of world of trade. The Round Table had come to the conclusion that the German Reich, by its dynamic growth and its very existence, posed a mortal threat to continued British domination of the seas and control of world trade and finance. The Round Table group argued that a pre-emptive war was called for to stop the otherwise inevitable German march to world domination on the ashes of the British Empire. The Causes for War against Germany There were two immediate casus belli for the (first world) war. First, and perhaps most decisive, was the decision of the German banking and political leadership to complete a rail link from Berlin to Baghdad in Mesopotamia (Iraq), a part of the Ottoman Empire. This posed a threat to British oil supplies in Persia as well as to British control of the passageway to its crown jewel colony, India. The second cause was the decision of the German Reich to build a deepwater navy to defend German trade routes against the British control of the seas. **** Morgan’s Lucrative Business By the eve of America’s entry into the war, J.P. Morgan & Co. had organized the export of some $5 billion worth of war matériel to the English and French, and later Italian, governments, all bought on credit organized by J.P. Morgan & Co. Such an amount - equivalent to about $90 billion in contemporary dollar value - had never before been transacted by a private banking group. The enormous profits American industry drawing was from financing and supplying munitions and war matériel to Britain and the allied powers in Europe. Wall Street cronies would benefit handsomely should the war continue much longer. It was enough to cause a major banking crisis should the loans default. In 1916 alone American industry, despite the nation’s official neutrality, exported a staggering $1,290,000,000 worth of war munitions to England and France. From the time of its official entry into the European war in April 1917 until the signing of armistice with Germany on November 11, 1918, the United States Government lent the European Allied Powers what Lamont had called a really “stupendous” sum: $9,386,311,178. ***A War to ‘make the world safe’ for J.P. Morgan Then, in late 1916 and into the first months of 1917, their prospects suddenly turned catastrophic. In February 1917 the Russian Czar abdicated as the exhausted military staged a mutiny at St. Petersburg. The Russian Army leadership was powerless to suppress the mutiny. Were Russia’s forces to leave the war, Germany would no longer be faced with a devastating two-front war and could focus her forces on the Western Front. J P Morgan & Company began to fear that the unthinkable might happen, namely that Germany might after all win the war. The outlook in Europe was “alarming” to America’s industrial and financial interests. **** Using Propaganda as a weapon On April 13, 1917 Woodrow Wilson, Woodrow Wilson, who had been re-elected as a peace candidate in 1916, bowing to pressure from the bankers, created the Committee on Public Information (CPI) to promote the war domestically and to publicize American war aims abroad. CPI combined advertising techniques with a sophisticated understanding of human psychology. It marked the first time that a government disseminated propaganda on such a large scale. It was in every sense a precursor of the world depicted by George Orwell in his novel 1984. The CPI assaulted the unwitting American public with a calculated barrage of lies, jingoistic epithets demonizing Germans, coupled with horrifying images allegedly showing German soldiers bayoneting Belgian babies, and other manufactured atrocities. These images and symbols were fed continuously through the mainstream media in order to whip the American public into a prowar frenzy against a nation, Kaiser Germany, which posed no actual threat to it. As a result, Woodrow Wilson, who had been re-elected as a peace candidate in 1916, led America into the First World War in April 1917. Europe’s Heavy Price for the (First World) War One consequence of the destructive European War of 1914-1918 had been the unprecedented transfer of Europe’s gold reserves out of Europe’s central banks and into the vaults of the Federal Reserve, as debt-strapped European belligerents, from England to France to Italy and beyond, were forced to pay for American manufactured war supplies in gold. The New York Money Trust, viewed the role of Britain and the Bank of England as a distinctly junior or subordinate part of their New York-centered system -something the City of London and the British establishment were not about to accept. The British establishment had naively expected that their American “cousins” would forget about debt repayment once the war had been won by the Anglo-American-French-Italian allied front. Those illusions evaporated as the US Government, under pressure from Morgan and Wall Street, refused to budge. The US Government had insisted at Versailles in 1919 that Britain, France and Italy repay its US war loans in dollars. Britain’s debts to Washington equaled almost precisely the sum of war reparations the British, French and Italian allied governments had imposed on the defeated German economy at Versailles, by design.

    Global Renaissance905Global Renaissance9057 өдрийн өмнө
    • It's great if one can print endless amounts of currency, and lend it to countries at war... "The U.S. did not suspend the gold standard during the war. The newly created Federal Reserve intervened in currency markets and sold bonds to “sterilize” some of the gold imports that would have otherwise increased the stock of money....[see text] *As a result of World War I the United States, which had been a net debtor country, had become a net creditor by 1919.* [24] (from wiki:Gold_standard) "Debt-trap diplomacy is carried out in bilateral relations, with a powerful lending country seeking to saddle a borrowing nation with enormous debt so as to increase its leverage over it.[1][2]" (from wiki: Debt-trap_diplomacy) Not a newly "invented" political tool at all, of course. It has existed ever since debt was misused as a "tool", both on the micro-level of societies, as well as the macro-level (states, empires). It's great if one has a "product" called "debt" selling like the proverbial "hot cakes", and buyers with tunnel-vision, not realizing what they're getting themselves into.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard6 өдрийн өмнө
    • The term you are looking for is "preventive war", not "pre-emptive". For the definition to fit "pre-emptive", the threat to a state/nation must be real and immediate...

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard6 өдрийн өмнө
  • this is incorrect unlike the ww2 ww1 just started with Austria Hungary and Serbia and everyone else joined blaming him is just foolish russia and france share the same responsibility

    A HusseinA Hussein17 өдрийн өмнө
    • @Unadin It's a pretty apt term for what they were planning. Chop bits off around the periphery, to greatly reduce Serbia's potential and influence, and parcel them out to Serbia's neighbours, thus gaining favour and influence there themselves.

      BolivarBolivar6 өдрийн өмнө
    • @Bolivar I have to say I have never heard the word "dismember" used that way before.

      UnadinUnadin6 өдрийн өмнө
    • @A Hussein Austria-Hungary wasn't trying to take Serbia. They weren't planning to annex any Serbian lands. They were going to dismember Serbia and parcel bits off to it's neighbours. The goal in 1914 was the same goal they had in 1913, crushing Serbia as a power in the Balkans. Austria-Hungary fully expected Russian reactions to this. Why do you think they approached Germany in the first place? Russia's interests in the Balkan's were no secret, as were Austria-Hungary's. Bethmann knew he was risking a European Conflict with the path he had taken with the Blank Cheque. The only question you need to ask is : Did Germany _really_ think that Russia would sit by and let Serbia be crushed, or did Germany believe their military commanders (who had been pushing for a preventative war since 1913) when they told them that war was winnable in 1914, but not by 1916/17? How much did this "advice" colour the decisions made in Berlin during July 1914 and just how hard were they trying to prevent this eventuality?

      BolivarBolivar12 өдрийн өмнө
    • @Bolivar if russia joined was one of the clauses and in that time empires trying to expand was normal so Austria Hungary tring to take Serbia was no different to what russia did to ottoman and Persian lands they took it forcefully so AH was normal and allies joining in is part of the war

      A HusseinA Hussein12 өдрийн өмнө
    • @A Hussein It could have been a "limited" war (i.e. between Austria-Hungary and Serbia and/or Russia) but for Germany's "Blank Cheque". This was issued _before_ any Russian involvement, and guaranteed that any Russian involvement would also involve Germany, which would then involve France via treaty commitments to Russia. Without the Blank Cheque, Austria-Hungary would have been unlikely to seek a war against Serbia in the face of Russian involvement, and would have reluctantly sought a diplomatic solution to their grievances.

      BolivarBolivar13 өдрийн өмнө
  • The geopolitical implications of trying to "cordon off" rivals are strikingly similar... In the late-19th Century, France fought back against the German attempts to isolate it politically, by cordoning off Germany and the Central Powers with a ring of alliance partners. France, in the west, a hostile Russia (as the "dissed girlfriend") in the east. GB's RN in the position to cut off the north, in case of war. That only left a small corridor of access either through Serbia, or Austria-Hungary's ports in the Adriatic (threatened by British hegemony over Greece). Today, we see a similar strategy concerning China, or "Chy-naaah", as some say (LOL). Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines controlling sea access to the east. Trump playing it nice with Putin/Russia at the time, apparently didn't work out. Shame. Of course, Russia would have cut off the north-west/north-east. A more hostile India, will cover the south-west sector...almost there. That only leaves a narrow corridor of access to the south, in the South China Sea. The Sprattly Islands... History might not always be 100% the same, but it certainly rhymes. Let's see if the effects are going to be the same...

    Ralph BernhardRalph BernhardСарын өмнө
    • In the bigger picture Putin played the same role as "Wilhelm II". Not exact, but close enough to explain historical paralels. Just like Wilhelm's Germany once refused the requests of the "alpha" (London) to become a tool for an "empire". I assume (without evidence) that Putin refused the USA's requests to become a tool to encircle China. Of course, it's all about "Chy-naah" and the "bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb, bomb Iran"-wishes of a certain fraction in Washington DC. That was clear even before Trump turned up, trying to jank "little rocket man" off the Beijing leash... *The historical "narrative" re. Germany/Wilhelm II is dead wrong.* At the time, say the late 1890s, the British Empire approached Berlin, with a request/suggestion for an alliance (see Balfour/Chamberlain). Of course, such an "alliance" had the main objective of turning Berlin into a temporary "best friend" and "lightning rod" for Russian and French venom, boiling up due to imperialistic differences of the three powers (GB/France/Russia). Berlin was not that naive. It wanted to be considered an alliance partner on eye level, with the own risks it would be taking (wedged in between Russia and France) suitably considered in such an "alliance". It would have meant that London would have to voluntarily step down from its self-appointed role of "balancer of powers/decider of wars", and accept Berlin on the top "rung" of "Empires". Or, imagine an athlete, having to share the top position on the podium... Of course, by the late 19th century, Berlin had also already become London's "default rival/default enemy in war", as decided per "economy/weight", same as "Chy-naah" started becoming the new alpha's "default rival/default enemy in war" around the turn of the century (around 2000).

      Ralph BernhardRalph BernhardСарын өмнө
  • 43:00 the rooster is a fantastic touch. Well done a/v team.

    Grovesie35Grovesie35Сарын өмнө
  • That kaiser was off-center.

    5kehhn5kehhnСарын өмнө
  • When I hear the family justifying the warmongering of their granddad I would just want to spit them in their face.

    Seba SebaSeba SebaСарын өмнө
    • @Unadin It wasn't a "universal" opinion. Sympathies were split, and would vary from state to state. There was still significant mistrust of Britain and it's colonial policies within large sections of the American populace and leadership. At this time, 1914, German's made up America's largest ethnic immigrant community. At the outbreak of hostilities, there was significant support for Germany. This support gradually waned with time, and as a direct result of German actions, vanishing almost entirely, at least in it's vocal and public appearance, with the sinking of the Lusitania. Edit : TLDR : America's entry into the war, on either side, was in no way a "certainty" as at the outbreak of hostilities public opinion there was so divided. Wilson did begin to lean towards the Entente powers, but without public support, and therefore the support from Congress, this was never going to happen. Germany's conduct of the war allowed this to happen.

      BolivarBolivar14 өдрийн өмнө
    • @Bolivar I was unaware of any significant anti-British sentiment among Americans at that time, except for the Irish Americans. I think that by then, Americans would have viewed the War of 1812 as ancient history.

      UnadinUnadin14 өдрийн өмнө
    • @Potato4life11 Some small points to bear in mind : America _never_ refused to supply Germany or the Central Powers during the time she was neutral. Of course, like the Entente, they would have to use their own shipping to transport goods from America, which leaves the small problem of the Entente Blockade and the Central Powers instigated War Zone to contend with. Tragedies like the Lusitania occur when nations implement "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare" i.e. Civilian ships are engaged and sunk without warning, without prior search and without allowing passengers and crew time to disembark into lifeboats before sinking the vessel. i.e. Not following established Cruiser Rules. The Zimmerman Telegraph would, by most people's reasonable definition, be a valid casus belli on it's own merits. But the important thing to note about the Telegram are the fact that it states Germany is going to recommence "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare", and whilst they state in the telegram the hope that this will not bring the US into war, in fact, this was already regarded in Germany as an almost certain outcome. (See Holtzendorff Memorandum of 22 December 1916 for details of the thinking behind this). At the start of the war, public feeling in America was divided. There was a huge public sympathy and leaning towards Germany. Remember, many people still disliked and distrusted Britain due to it's colonial history in America. Germany was it's own worst enemy in this case, poor strategic and public relations decisions gradually eroded this good will in America to the point where public favour had swung towards the Entente. Germany really has no one to blame but herself. You might want to read about the Black Tom explosion of July 30 1916 for yet another instance of this behaviour.

      BolivarBolivar17 өдрийн өмнө
    • @Potato4life11 Couple of thoughts: 1. I am unaware of any international law or norm at that time saying that a country can not intervene in a conflict. I can see how in some situations it would be wrong. For example, if Bismarck made a secret agreement with Britain to intervene in the Franco Prussian War once it started, that would be wrong because they would have deceived France into thinking that it was going to war with just one country. However, WW1 had raged on for two years before America declared war. You could argue that breaking the stalemate saved countless lives on both sides of the conflict. 2. I hate to sound pompous and refer you to another one of my comments, but as I mentioned earlier I posted three long comments about five months ago explaining my views. It would be difficult to sum them up in one short comment. However, the gist of one of my comments is that Germany cheated by going through Belgium. Europe at that time had a balance of power arrangement similar to the ancient Greek city states. In both cases, you had great powers clustered together in a small region. When you have an arrangement like this, it is crucial that the different states observe certain rules of conduct when going to war with each other. If one of them cheats, other powers will often come to the aid of its enemy. I realize that stories of German atrocities in Belgium were greatly exaggerated, but that's not the point. The point is that going through Belgium was cheating and unfair to the French. Even if America broke some rule by getting involved, Germany broke the rules first. 3. I think America made the right call in intervening. If I were to fault America for anything, it would be its conduct after the war. It should have joined the League of Nations and been more forgiving of the war debts. Then again, Hoover's relief programs saved millions of lives.

      UnadinUnadin24 өдрийн өмнө
    • @Unadin you make a very good point and I did over look that, but I don’t believe that Germany should be pinned as the bad guy in WWI, if anything I believe that the United States where the bad guys in WWI. The United States got involved in a European war without proper justification. Most would use the Zimmerman telegram as a valid justification, but the Zimmerman telegram was just a proposition for a Mexican German alliance if the United States joined the war. My final reason of why the United States was the bad guy in WWI is that while claiming neutrality they not only transported equipment to the English and French, but they used civilian vessels to transport the equipment which not only endangered their own citizens live but also the lives of other nations citizens by effectively using them as a cover/shield against German submarine warfare (which is how you get tragedies like the sinking of the Lusitania, a civilian vessel that was carrying weapons). Over all yes Germany did prolong the war and definitely weren’t the good guys, they also weren’t the bad guys, the United States are the bad guys for getting involved in European affairs without proper justification.

      Potato4life11Potato4life1124 өдрийн өмнө
  • This "documentary" is old and biased as hell, making ample use of the old stereotypes about Wilhelm that in recent years have been shown to be false. Moreover, when the "documentary" makes such a glaring mistake (right at the beginning!) as to confuse the Emperor's son's voice with that of the Emperor, they are really giving a poor impression of their "documentary".

    Niko Christian WallenbergNiko Christian WallenbergСарын өмнө
    • @Nathan Ashley according to another, more recent documentary, he had a hatred towards Britain because of not only the Doctor who delivered him but the Doctor/s who he felt let his father die.

      *Uptown**Uptown*4 өдрийн өмнө
    • @Gabe Oooohhh I had a similar discussion with someone just this morning about this topic, and how the availability of sources affects differing perspectives of history based on language. German language histories of the war and it's surrounding events may, and often have, differed from English language histories. Not merely as a result of cultural bias and preconceptions, but as a consequence of the availability of accessible sources. Fortunately, modern scholarship is transcending the language differences and more balanced views of events are emerging.

      BolivarBolivar29 өдрийн өмнө
    • @Gabe Oooohhh It isn't Simon, I'm afraid. The name is a reference to the character in Harry Harrison's Stainless Steel Rat books I have a fondness for ;-)

      BolivarBolivar29 өдрийн өмнө
    • @Bolivar I definately understand where you're coming from and love the fact that perspectives mean everything. I use the example that im sure a German historian views/teaches German history very differently than an American historian would view/teach German history just based on their views, although they may have the exact same information =) To answer your question direct though, l prefer books, so typically i will go to a history book as my primary source of information given that books in my opinion are more direct, more fact given and less biased involved. I have read a few biographies on Wilhelm/German history, also ive seen many biographies on this particular topic with both differing views and different sources, and with this particular documentary, in the first few minutes, i feel as though the biographer is portraying a picture and pointing the viewer to a direction rather than just giving the information. As im thinking this, im reading comments on how there are major events this documentary got wrong or were slightly off on dates. I should give it more of a chance than those few minutes though so that i can agree with, but given those 2 factors, l dont think this particular documentary would be up my alley, id rather read in the first place. But i do understand your sentiment and may reconsider watching this.. Btw, if your first name is Simon, im impressed

      Gabe OooohhhGabe Oooohhh29 өдрийн өмнө
    • @Gabe Oooohhh That's a strange attitude to adopt. Give any two historians the same facts and tell them to write the history, and they may well come to two differing conclusions. This does not imply "propaganda", merely differing interpretations. Your comment seems to imply, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you are only prepared to watch or read something that reinforces a belief you already hold? Surely the object of studying history, and learning in general, is to increase one's knowledge? With regards history, that must surely include reading/watching things which challenge what we think we know. You don't have to agree with the conclusions arrived at, you can disagree with "facts" presented, but to refuse to accept the possibility of other opinions is a somewhat narrow viewpoint to take. People seem to think history is written in stone, and there's a tendency these days to treat "revisionist", with regards to history, as being a dirty word. But, if you're not questioning history, what's the point?

      BolivarBolivar29 өдрийн өмнө
  • What a load

    wp rwp rСарын өмнө
  • I firmly believe that the Kaiser wasn't an evil menace and he certainly didn't deserve to be exiled like Napoleon, hell Napoleon didn't deserve it.

    The JokerThe JokerСарын өмнө
    • @Gold Runner1169 True, but who wasn't at the time, leader wise?

      The JokerThe Joker12 цагийн өмнө
    • He was anti semetic though

      Gold Runner1169Gold Runner116916 цагийн өмнө
    • They should of replaced. Him with his son

      man of the peopleman of the people25 өдрийн өмнө
  • Kings or presidents are puppets in the end of who control the economy of the country. Germany rushed to war to subdue Serbia because it wouldn't give a permission to cross its territory to build a railways to Turkey. Money talk, money walk.

    rivobravorivobravoСарын өмнө
    • just follow the $$ trail

      Nathan AshleyNathan AshleyСарын өмнө
    • This is wildly erroneous. You have a dopey teenager’s understanding of history. .

      Gemmelius GrammaticusGemmelius GrammaticusСарын өмнө
    • Yes. Not to forget the Danube, a navigatable waterway stretching from Germany all the way to the Black Sea, easily blockadable" by Belgrade. Berlin's political tactic was to "sit on the fence" while others "slugged it out", then swoop in and pick up the rewards. *A new sphere of influence, railways, a new waterway, a new unhindered access to a potential alliance partner...* To achieve their geopolitical aims, our leaders need "enthusiastic emotionally wound-up soldiers" though, which reminds me of my favorite joke...if you can call it "a joke". PART 1: Franz Josef walks into a Kneipe and says "I want new taxpayers, a bigger empire, access to the Black Sea, and beyond. You, you and you...go off and get your head blown off, or sit in a muddy trench..." *Background: Sound of slurping Weizenbier and soft disinterested chuckles...* Of course, that did not happen. In wise premonition, the strategists considered their other options... PART 2: Franz Josef walks into a bar and shouts *"Are we going to let those Slavic terrorists kill our beloved leaders!!!"* Background: Sound of chairs falling over, as everbody scrambles for the conscription offices... There are "roles", which one can assign to the actors who involved themselves voluntarily. 1) Those who wished to "sit on the fence", *enable war* (or "not bend over backwards" to try and avoid it), and gain by others "slugging it out". Berlin, Paris, London. 2) And those who who had geopolitical aims for their "empires". Belgrade (Greater Serbia), Vienna ("taxpayers" for a declining "empire"), St Petersburg (block the access of a rival to the Ottoman Empire, Black Sea, etc.) 3) the "also rans", with a variety of ambitions. Rome, Constantinople, Tokyo... Unfortunately for Europe, there was only one power which had *both* the advantage of "power", as well as the advantage of the *"geographical advantage"* allowing it to "sit on the fence" as long as it wished, and "swoop in" at a time of choosing, and gain from the stupidity of others.

      Ralph BernhardRalph BernhardСарын өмнө
  • I disliked because of the opening description of him which is completely unfair and similar to the propaganda of the day. Then listening to more of this..how simplistic and one-dimensional! As if the British Empire didn’t have ‘nationalism’! ‘Unrepentant’ German nationalist? Whatever...Who tried ‘to bring the British empire to its knees?’ The British were no peace-loving, anti-nationalist victims. And I say that as a great admirer of my British brothers. Looks like I’m not the only one to dislike. 🇺🇸 1-17(AIR)CAV

    Wild Mountain GwendyWild Mountain Gwendy2 сарын өмнө
    • Agreed. The *real* "1st WW1" took place from 1803 to 1815. In terms of scope, powers involved, and capabilities (at the time before wars became "total"). Why do you think historians don't call it "WW1", or try to link the various and varied motivations and/or intentions, or bother trying to pin the blame on anybody "starting it"? Interesting question.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard2 сарын өмнө
    • I agree that some of the language at the beginning is a bit unfair. However, the documentary does go on to provide a decent summary of his life. No one should base their view of Wilhelm solely on this documentary, but it's not worthless.

      UnadinUnadin2 сарын өмнө
  • Why is he wearing dresses as a child? Is that the fashion of the day or an identity of gender issue?

    Oflunra ZeuqramOflunra Zeuqram2 сарын өмнө
    • @Malone Brinton Asian and Middle Eastern aristocracy.

      Oflunra ZeuqramOflunra ZeuqramСарын өмнө
    • Outdated fashion for the wealthy. There were a lot of weird quirks back in the day

      Destuba EDestuba EСарын өмнө
    • @Oflunra Zeuqram what others are you referring to?

      Malone BrintonMalone BrintonСарын өмнө
    • @Oflunra Zeuqram Actually it was more of an American thing at the time, before routine infant circumcision.

      wp rwp rСарын өмнө
    • @Jean Ghika Don't be dirty minded 24hrs. a day. What does that even mean?

      Oflunra ZeuqramOflunra Zeuqram2 сарын өмнө
  • The man that started ww1 that's a lie it was some Serbia guy that killed Joseph of Austro-Hungarian emperor that started it

    Silverreich ReichSilverreich Reich2 сарын өмнө
    • He assassinated arch Duke Franz Ferdinand

      American ProudAmerican Proud7 өдрийн өмнө
    • Agreed. Serbian greatness (aka "the Greater Serbia"-dream which kickstarted the entire mess in 1914) was certainly not a just cause to instigate a war which would lead to 40,000,000 casualties. It wasn't in 1914, and it wasn't in 1989 either, when the "Greater Serbia" ambitions (aka "Yugoslavia") again reared its ugly head... Big difference between 1914 and 1989? In 1989 the "Greater Serbia"-fanboys in Belgrade got no outside support for their dreams.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard2 сарын өмнө
  • He was a one arm bandit.

    Dennis EsplinDennis Esplin2 сарын өмнө
    • @Jean Ghika Thanks. Since one of my relatives help create CND Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament I agree. The reasons for dropping the Nuclear Bombs are well documented. Hitler bombed many cultural cities in England. The rationale again is well documented. The utter devastation of Europe is testamony to the folly of allowing meglomanics to control our destiny. Peace.

      Dennis EsplinDennis Esplin2 сарын өмнө
    • @Jean Ghika I take it you are a fan of Kaiser Bill. I think Bismark was a more positive force for a united Germany. I suspect he would have talked Austria Hungary out of a war on three fronts. Two huge armies France Russia. Plus the Royal Navy and blockade. As for the British Empire good or bad its influence still exists today. Out of the sheer folly of WW1 we got an even bigger monster. Htler. The British Empire and the industrial power of America destroyed his evil regime.

      Dennis EsplinDennis Esplin2 сарын өмнө
    • Never forget what said the Knight of Dry-Whisky. ala WC, aka Winston Churchill: Germany was there, so we had to destroy it. Would have the Kaiser said "England is here, let's destroy it!" Our planet would have been a healthier one.

      Jean GhikaJean Ghika2 сарын өмнө
    • @Dennis Esplin H.M.Kaiser Wilhelm II was no criminal. Just have a look at the USA atomic-bombing two large Japanese towns with only civilian population. They distroyed Dresden, Stuttgart, Würzburg and other great centers of the European culture, just because they knew that the German people loved these. Look at the photos taken after the bombing of these lovely towns. And, at the end, left the East-half of Europe in the hands of the Soiets. Cursed be them!

      Jean GhikaJean Ghika2 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard Absolutely. Meglomanics know when their time has come. Fascists project confidence which disorientated people love. We pay through the nose later.

      Dennis EsplinDennis Esplin2 сарын өмнө
  • In any other setting & time he would have been called the psychologically damaged child of a dysfunctional family! As Lennon said - "All you need is love..."

    Deep HeatDeep Heat2 сарын өмнө
  • Bardzo ciekawy film wojnami rządzą banki .dobrze się stało że Polska odzyskała w końcu niepodległość . Wielkie Imperia europejskie się skończyły. Polityka jest paskudna szkoda tych biednych ludzi którzy musieli zginąć .Dziwi mnie ostatni Kajzer urodził się niepełnosprawnym i był rzadnym wielkiej tragedii ludzkiej.pozdrawiam

    barbara Jbarbara J2 сарын өмнө
  • I don't like monarchs but I have huge respect for that guy

    66びことるジョン66びことるジョン2 сарын өмнө
    • @Jean Ghika How?

      Deep HeatDeep HeatСарын өмнө
    • You forget that France started the war.

      Jean GhikaJean GhikaСарын өмнө
    • @Deep Heat yes

      Dave4681Dave46812 сарын өмнө
    • Our Queen (UK) awesome?

      Deep HeatDeep Heat2 сарын өмнө
  • How many people died because of this ass clown? 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

    Otis CarterOtis Carter2 сарын өмнө
    • No you're the clown

      Sri HartatikSri HartatikСарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard "After giving their support to Vienna, Berlin and Austria made their intention to issue an ultimatum to Belgrade known to other states, via back channels." No, they didn't. They were expressly trying to conceal such information, and were going to great lengths to do so, but it was leaked completely by accident and inadvertently from a couple of sources, one German, one Austrian. Vienna was furious at the leak, believing, erroneously, that it was solely from German incompetence, and thus began to restrict the flow of information to Berlin.

      BolivarBolivarСарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard Russia did give a measured to Berlin and Vienna. They stated very clearly and most succinctly that they would not, in any circumstances, tolerate military action against Serbia. Berlin chose to ignore this, and furthermore, chose not to pass this information to Vienna.

      BolivarBolivarСарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard Alrighty then....

      chickey333chickey333Сарын өмнө
    • @chickey333 GB signed the same treaty about Belgium in 1839 as the Netherlands did, and had the same "obligations" as the Netherlands did...which is...."none".

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard2 сарын өмнө
  • A very good psychological profile, that explains his actions leading to war.

    Sergio RamirezSergio Ramirez2 сарын өмнө
    • @Unadin What is a "fact"? It is nothing more than something which is "incontrovertible" in the light of the known evidence. But what if new evidence is discovered and presented? What becomes of the fact then? The thing that struck me most, sticking out as it does like a sore thumb, and which really drew my attention to your original comment was that of you referring to a media outlet as "reputable". Whilst you do later qualify your reference, this, to me, is the core of the problem. I would strongly argue that there is _NO_ such thing as an outlet who's reputation is such that anything provided should be taken at face value, and I include in that the many peer-reviewed journals and university presses who hold their contributor's to higher than normal evidentiary standards. Rather, content should _always_ be assessed on it's individual merit. This is where education comes in, particularly in an age of self-publishing, where authors and content creators can present their views to a vast, world audience with very little effort and cost. The biggest service a school can provide it's pupils is not so much in determining "what" they learn, but in instructing them "how" to learn. "Question everything." - Attributable to numerous sources (and for very good reason)

      BolivarBolivarСарын өмнө
    • @Unadin and Bolivar Yes, all agreed. Historians are often very "picky" when it comes to which facts they wish to "raise above others" in importance, thereby influencing public opinion. Usually every "version" of events has a grain of truth, which is then (more or less) "spun" into whichever narrative or sensationalism an advocate wishes to. The "core of truth" re. the allegation that "a US plane took off to nuke Arabs in Egypt" could just be that as a precautionary measure, the US sent *all* of their strategic air force, with *all* of their operational nukes into the sky, for the simple reason that if intellegence reports were wrong, and Moscow decided to escalate a regional conflict (a "limited war" between Israel and Russia's "temporaray best friends", the Arab states) into an overregional conflict, or even a "world war", then an important leg of her own Nuclear Triad wouldn't be caught like a sitting duck, *on the runway.* In other words, DEFCON. There was a war going on (Cold War), which could escalate into a "hot" war at any time, therefore sending "planes into the sky with nukes on board" was *normal,* not *abnormal.* In case Russia had decided, as in 1914, to "defend friends", there would have been a high risk of escalation, just as in 1914. It is what amateur historians of the "History Channel"-variety often do. They spin "normal events" into something "abnormal" or "evil", in order to sell a book, make a documentary for kids thereby gaining advertising space, or influence public opinion. Yes, a dangerous dangerous "game".

      Ralph BernhardRalph BernhardСарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar In this case, the real crime was taking a highly improbably theory and presenting it as fact. Consider: 1. If a video gets some facts wrong about WW1, it is unprofessional but not terribly harmful. Germany's conflicts with the western powers ended decades ago, so it is not going to damage modern day relations. By contrast, America's relations with the Arab world are still very tense. If an Arab were to watch that documentary, he might think that America came within two minutes of nuking Egypt. 2. I am old enough to know not to believe everything I see in these documentaries. However, in my younger days, I might have just accepted the documentary's assertion as truth. I can easily see a teenager watching that documentary and thinking that a large and well known company like Amazon would not air a documentary like that if it weren't true. 3. As an aside, Amazon also has a comically bad documentary about the Battle of Chickamauga. Usually in these documentaries, if they are reading a quote from someone, they will have someone other than the narrator read the quote aloud. In this documentary, there was a quote from a woman, so the narrator raised the pitch of his voice when reading her quote.

      UnadinUnadinСарын өмнө
    • @Unadin From my understanding, it was Israel that was "planning" a nuclear detonation within the Egyptian Desert on the eve of the Six Days War. They weren't quite ready for an actual nuclear test, but their program had extended so far as to be able to "improvise" an nuclear explosion (the device would need to be transported to the site by hand). It eventually came to nothing, and the test was, from what I can gather, intended to be nothing more than that, a test and a warning, and intended to cause no casualties (though the safety of the team that would deliver and assemble the device would have been far from guaranteed). History, contrary to popular opinion, isn't written in stone. New facts and details emerge with time and our understanding of events will, and should, change as these facts come to light. There's a tendency to regard the word "revisionist", in terms of historiography, as something of a dirty word. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If you're not revising history, then what's the point? I would suggest the real danger, and the real crime, lies in not revising history in light of new evidence. History should be a cause for debate and discussion. Debate challenges our preconceptions and forces us to look again, possibly in a different light, at past events.

      BolivarBolivarСарын өмнө
    • @Unadin Also see my new answer to rivobravo (under the video) in which I point out the difference between the "strategists and their goals" and the "poor sod who has to sit in the muddy trench" to achieve it. Good, if one can recognize "the emotional argument". Not only today, in our daily lives, but also in the historical analysis. Or the "logos, ethos, pathos" of our daily lives. Too much "pathos"? Someone is trying to bs you :-)

      Ralph BernhardRalph BernhardСарын өмнө
  • Uhhh why was he wearing a dress as a baby??

    Rick HarrisRick Harris2 сарын өмнө
    • Young Boys were commonly dressed in dresses because it was just easier to put on and off

      American ProudAmerican Proud7 өдрийн өмнө
    • Because the elites love to pervert nature. As above so below etc. Why do you think transgenderism is so in your face these days, ESPECIALLY marketed towards children?

      andre Mandre MСарын өмнө
    • Search 'breeching' on Google.

      The History RoomThe History Room2 сарын өмнө
  • Mummies boy. Big chip on his shoulder. ‘armless bugger. Thick toff.

    Hairbartlet DaisydogworthHairbartlet Daisydogworth2 сарын өмнө
    • @Conor Howells Im sure he did after all he was related to Queen Victoria, the Mother of all lousy mothers of 19 century european aristocracy. Indulge them but control them. Never really ends well. Look at the fate of Neros mum.

      Hairbartlet DaisydogworthHairbartlet Daisydogworth2 сарын өмнө
    • He supposedly hated his mother.

      Conor HowellsConor Howells2 сарын өмнө
    • Haig,Clemenceau. Point taken.

      Hairbartlet DaisydogworthHairbartlet Daisydogworth2 сарын өмнө
    • Lots of "chips" on lots of "shoulders". Never ends well. The rest is human nature. It's worse having leaders with "no brain" than having leaders with "no arm"...

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard2 сарын өмнө
  • Good cousin

    Abbey SinghAbbey Singh2 сарын өмнө
  • Why is the great grandson of Wilhelm I called a prince? There is no monarchy in Germany.

    Paul MichelPaul Michel2 сарын өмнө
    • France is a republic too, but there are still Prince de Ligne, Duke Cossé-Brissac, Comte de Paris, &c. Do not be envious!

      Jean GhikaJean GhikaСарын өмнө
    • It is an honorific.

      Wild Mountain GwendyWild Mountain Gwendy2 сарын өмнө
    • HOW DARE YOU?!?! THE MIGHTY HOUSE OF HOHENZOLLERN WILL RISE AGAIN!!

      mjxwmjxw2 сарын өмнө
    • The family is still around and are aristocratic so have titles and a head of the family, etc. The title of Prince has no power but is his title in his family and in Germany, but that is just out of respect for who his family is and could be taken away whenever. There's a lot more to it but that's the basics of it.

      anthonyguiness9anthonyguiness92 сарын өмнө
    • He is the artist formerly known as Prince.

      UnadinUnadin2 сарын өмнө
  • From 47:00 minutes onwards. The so-called "Schlieffen Plan" was a contingency plan which was devised, and which cristalized out of several pre-war war games re. potential "what ifs" faced by Germany and her alliance partner Austria-Hungary. It would be "triggered", in case certain criteria are met. A fact which is not clear if Wilhelm truly understood. Note, it came about as a result (causal effect) of other nations' leaders decisions. That is how "causality" works. At first, devised in 1905, *after* it became clear that 1) France and Russia could not be convinced to give up on their policy of encirclement (see the failure of the Treaty of Bjorko), nor coerced into abondoning their alliances aimed at Berlin/Germany/Triple Alliance (see the Agadir crises). The final step towards it becoming the *only* German war contingency plan, was in 1913, when it became clear that London would also not abandon its position of being the "balancer of powers/decider of wars" on the continent (after The Haldane mission), Attempts by Berlin to achieve this, were basically given up, and faced with the situation of "three enemies in war, right or wrong", all other contingency plans were shelved. Re. the act of "encircling others", often brushed off as "nonsense", and "snowflake outrage", I suggest referring to our beloved Bible. "Do not do onto others, as one does not wish to be done onto". Would *you* like to be encircled? Well...don't do it to others. The age-old wisdom of "practicing as one preaches", does not apply to our dear leaders, as they set up the world for failure...

    Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard3 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard "My sole consideration and sympathy goes to the millions of victims, irrespective of what language they spoke" Look on the bright side, "Everyone got what they deserved" (according to you). You couldn't ask for a more equitable resolution to a conflict than that, could you? So why the whining?

      BolivarBolivarСарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard Full of your usual nonsense and "stories", not worth the time to reply to. Have fun with it though.

      BolivarBolivarСарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar I left a new comment at the top. I'm sure you'll love it 😆😅

      Ralph BernhardRalph BernhardСарын өмнө
    • ​@Ralph Bernhard Did I call you such? Did I place that label on you? I stated that your "arguments" are not unique to you and that they appear in many places. This is a simple fact, verifiable by a simple "Google search". If you wish to "pigeon-hole" yourself, be my guest.

      BolivarBolivarСарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar LOL There you go again.... Why don't you Google the Allied war aims yourself? Innocently claiming to fight for borders based on nationality, then contradicting it *in the same document* with terms like "annexation", territories to be handed over, etc. I'm not European. *Sorry, I have no sympathy for empires, nations or states.* Everyone got what they deserved, and that includes the lying, manipulating, deceitful "winners". From "rulers of the world" to piles of rubble and client states. Too bad. Cry me a river... My sole consideration and sympathy goes to the millions of victims, irrespective of what language they spoke, what god they prayed to (or which particular way they worshipped the same "god"), the culture, ethnicity. How is that "nazi" or "fascist"? Care to explain?

      Ralph BernhardRalph BernhardСарын өмнө
  • What truly amazes me is not that there are really horrible, vile people in the world - that is a fact of life, but that a microscopically small number of such people can wreak such havoc, causing immense destruction, suffering and death, eg this appalling human being and an even more appalling one - Adolf Hitler. How the hell can this happen, and seemingly, go on happening?? The wrong people have been in charge throughout history, and even now, in 2021, we haven't put an end to that. Far from it! We electorates go on and on seemingly ad eternam colluding in this madness by electing total charlatans and idiots time after time (step forward Alexander Boris De Piffle Johnson). Furthermore, I am convinced that if women had been in charge and not men with their egos and childish pride, the world would be in a very much better state than it is now. Optimistic for the future? You must be joking!

    James ThomsonJames Thomson3 сарын өмнө
    • This is a really silly opinion. You ask "how can this happen and go on happening?!?" as if the fact that it continues to happen doesn't completely undermine your view that it's just a matter of a few bad actors being in positions of influence. If it were the case that all we need to do is get the nice people in charge, then surely just by chance we'd have gotten them already and this wouldn't happen. It happened and will continue to happen because nations have interests regardless of who is in charge. Sometimes those interests conflict. No amount of good intentions or kind sentiments can change that. And the idea that women are somehow incapable of seeing and acting on their nation's interests is, frankly, insulting and sexist.

      mjxwmjxw2 сарын өмнө
    • @STUDIO BENCIVENGA Marcus Bencivenga As I mentioned earlier in this comment thread, I don't think that Wilhelm II was a horrible person, just an incompetent leader. I don't know if the world would be better off with female leaders. However, I will say that if there is one leader whose gender was relevant, it would be Wilhelm II. Prussia was a militaristic society much like ancient Sparta. In ancient Sparta, if a boy were born with a deformity that rendered him unable to serve in the military, he would be tossed off of a cliff shortly after being born. 19th century Germans were a bit more civilized, but even so, Wilhelm would have felt the same sense of worthlessness. This was clearly one of the factors that shaped his personality, and one that would not have been relevant if he had been a woman.

      UnadinUnadin2 сарын өмнө
    • yeah feminist we see how good women are with Angela Merkel - you are a brainwashed boy - with the same lame clichees all teachers use since 30 years - we see the result: Gender cry babies that pose as second mummies - the documentary is clearly propaganda and Wilhelm was not at all guilty of the war. But go ahead worship Anglo-american propaganda.

      STUDIO BENCIVENGA Marcus BencivengaSTUDIO BENCIVENGA Marcus Bencivenga2 сарын өмнө
    • @James Thomson I thought you were making the point that throughout history, the wrong people have been in charge. Correct? What I was saying is that many leaders do not start off as bad people, but they become the wrong people because the job makes them that way. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The best we can do is to limit the amount of power that any one person can wield. Of course, people continue to elect politicians such as Boris Johnson and Donald Trump, but even so, a system of checks and balances can limit the amount of harm they do.

      UnadinUnadin3 сарын өмнө
    • @Unadin I did want to end the discussion because I never want to get into long discussions on youtube; pretty soon they go round in circles or off on tangents or misunderstandings. Life is too short. But because you are friendly and polite, I'll make an exception, but just to say this: read what I originally wrote again. It wasn't about Wilhelm, it was about a state of affairs in historical world government. I stand by every word of it, and I'm afraid your attempts to convince me otherwise haven't worked. Btw the concept of "evil" has no meaning for me. People behave wickedly of their own volition. Thanks for your friendly comments.

      James ThomsonJames Thomson3 сарын өмнө
  • The Kaiser was a schmuck, BUT, his mother is what made him that schmuck. In Germany, she INCESSANTLY went on about how Britain was better & Germany was foul. In more than a few respects, his mother was a copy of HER mother...and Queen Victoria was VILE.

    RusskivolRusskivol4 сарын өмнө
    • His mother was a schmuck for repeating her insults towards Wilhelm's left arm that made him insecure. Insecurity leads to brash decisions. Brash decisions and being a King are bad combinations.

      Alejándro CortésAlejándro Cortés2 сарын өмнө
  • I hope you realize that at the start of the video, the voice is not the kaiser but is instead his son the crown prince. Look up the MNthe video "Deutscher Kronprinz Wilhelm complete Interview in Fox Movietone News 1932".

    eatablecookie858eatablecookie8584 сарын өмнө
  • Nonsense. History is truly written by the victors. This documentary fails to understand either the Kaiser or the European situation in general. A very one dimensional and one sided documentary, typical of how we in the west view history in general, and why we are still so divided against other nations who are not "like" us.

    bLOCKbOYgAMESbLOCKbOYgAMES4 сарын өмнө
    • Why the loosers should write History ?? Will it fair for the victors ?

      Géo PolitiqueGéo Politique2 сарын өмнө
    • so true - lets see what an US newspaper wrote about Wilhelm 2 www.nytimes.com/1917/12/15/archives/pictures-the-kaiser-as-the-prince-of-peace-dr-thissens-new-book.html

      STUDIO BENCIVENGA Marcus BencivengaSTUDIO BENCIVENGA Marcus Bencivenga2 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard But you are "Mr Popcorn and Chips"? You don't take sides? Oh dear ...

      BolivarBolivar4 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar Every now and then, "a wall of waffle" is a suitable tool to counter an equal "wall of waffle" coming from from the other side :-D

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard4 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard "Both sides wanted the "free hand"." Britain wanted the Alliance. Britain's "so called" (by you) free hand was endless antagonism with Russia and France. Britain hoped that an alliance with Germany would give her sufficient diplomatic backing and weight to remove such tensions. The other option, as stated by Chamberlain, was to find an accommodation with France/Russia/both. First choice was Germany. Germany wasn't interested. "Aww well. Too bad."

      BolivarBolivar4 сарын өмнө
  • The emperor's army is going to march back to Berlin !, without the emperor ... Those were the deceitful words of his Generals the proud Prussians .. In my eyes most humiliated deception

    SoefSoef HAzzSoefSoef HAzz4 сарын өмнө
  • Strange to think that he died thinking Germany had won the war.

    zingerzinger4 сарын өмнө
    • In all ernest, so did King George V. When he died, he must've thought WW1 had secured the future of the British Empire... At least he had a battleship named after him. "Kings", "empires", and "battleships", were however antiquated concepts.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard4 сарын өмнө
  • thank you for upload. but why did you chop out so much content from this doc?

    haroldharold4 сарын өмнө
    • @The History Room my apologies. great doc. thank you for upload.

      haroldharold4 сарын өмнө
    • I didn't, Harold, I simply uploaded it as it is.

      The History RoomThe History Room4 сарын өмнө
  • The documentary doesn't mention the Treaty of Bjorko in 1905, and signed by Willhem II and Tzar Nicolas. If ratified, and as foreseen to include France, it would have served as an early form of *collective security* for every citizen of continental Europe. Of course, GB could have used the temporary Russian weakness in 1905 too (Tsushima, revolution, etc.) to conclude a separate peace with St Petersburg, with good prospects of success. Once implemented successfully, it would have engineered an impossible big war scenario... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Bj%C3%B6rk%C3%B6 Wilhelm always wanted peace. A peace which would not draw Germany into one of the many imperialistic Russian "adventures", and potentially drag Germany into a resulting war with another power. Notice the complete absence of secret land exchanges, scheming little "side plots", the "signing away" of 3rd party territories or rights... A truly visionary concept. But of course, for visionaries to succeed, it needs a visionary environment.

    Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard4 сарын өмнө
  • Well. my great-grandfather, the grocery store owner said that his great grandfather, the Kaiser was a total douchebag. I think my great-grandfather, the grocery store owner was correct after watching this documentary

    Nutter ButterNutter Butter4 сарын өмнө
  • I have is iron cross ring from 1915 to 1917 ww1

    Bubba BooBubba Boo4 сарын өмнө
  • From the intro... The "eternal German" wanting to "rule Europe", or "bring the British Empire to its knees"-narrative. Laughable. If any German leader wanted to do that, especially before the rise of the USA as a "power" which could realistically influence matters in Europe was complete, they would have done that. If their intention *had* been to "bring the British Empire to its knees", *they would have employed the same strategy the USA used to "bring the British Empire to its knees".* In a nutshell: *first* ally with the strongest power. *Then* overpower it. For Germany that meant first allying with the strongest "power" on the continent (country, empire, or alliance), which was Russia, and then somehow overpower it afterwards, either economically or commercially or militarily. [Note at the time, that Berlin had the "choice" between either a strong alliance partner in St Petersburg, *or* Vienna/Budapest, but not both] Berlin "chose" the weaker alliance as its main alliance partner. Not only was it easier to take influence on a weaker alliance partner, it was also a strategy any ruler would take who wished for peace. Allying with St Petersburg (thereby "dissing" A-H) would have meant eternal war. Greater reward? Sure. The rule of the world beckoned. But with a price tag of eternal war.

    Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard4 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar An "entente" coupled with a binding military accord of sorts, would have spared Europe from 2 world wars.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard4 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar Uhm. Whoever said Wilhelm strove for European hegemony? Do you have evidence for this bogus "want to rule Europe/the world"-bs allegations? Google false premise.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard4 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard "Entente"? You mean one of those wishy-washy, non-legally binding, not on eye level, non military sorts of things? (Your words) I don't see how that would prevent a determined country seeking a hegemony.

      BolivarBolivar4 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard You did. Balance of power would come into play when a country threatens hegemony, as you have said. So how was he going to achieve his hegemony? If he wasn't, balance of power is irrelevant. No hegemony, nothing to balance.

      BolivarBolivar4 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard "it didn't affect any British interests." That doesn't constitute "balance of power", that's just national defence. The same applies to _EVERY_ nation. You don't seem to grasp your own arguments? The 101 class was too much for you? Over your head?

      BolivarBolivar4 сарын өмнө
  • Dear Comment Madame: Germany was forced into the WW 1 and WW 2 by England and France...you cant hide the Truth!

    Zeckenlaus im SpeckmantelZeckenlaus im Speckmantel4 сарын өмнө
    • @Hiraeth Parichor That is only partially true. Fact is that it was Stalin which made "defending Poland" a futile undertaking. By agreeing to the carving up of Poland (Secret Protocol), Stalin effectively undermined the Cordon Sanitaire which Chamberlain had established (de facto an encirclement in the west and with Poland, not de jure re. the SU) around Nazi Germany after March 1939. All the SU would have needed to do to *keep* this Cordon Sanitaire effective indefinately, was to state (to the Nazi who came to Moscow for "a deal") that "an intact Poland is vital to the interests of the SU/the SU would see a German invasion of Poland as an act of aggression" (or similar). He didn't, because Stalin had plans. He wanted there to be another "world war" in which the hated capitalists would beat each other to a pulp, and then his communist armies would step in as the "decider", march over the ruins, and turn Europe into communist subjects of Moscow. Stalin knew there'd be a war the minute he made a deal with the Nazis. Why GB and France couldn't sign a pact with Stalin in 1939? (See the History Room's "Appeasement" video, where I described the logic/reason in detail) *Had Stalin never signed a deal with the Nazis, GB and France would have come to the aid of Poland, as promised.* Ater the 17th September, Poland was "written off" as indefensible, *because* Stalin had made his deal with the Nazis in Berlin, the exact nature of which was secret.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard2 сарын өмнө
    • Apparently, you can. You seem to be unable to find it.

      BolivarBolivar4 сарын өмнө
    • Zeckenlaus: Do you have any arguments to make supporting your assertion?

      UnadinUnadin4 сарын өмнө
    • WW2 couldn't be more different. Unlike WW1, which was avoidable at multiple stages, WW2 became tragically unavoidable (because both Hitler and Stalin wanted it, making "defending poor Poles" a lost cause). In 1938 London did send out feelers, and made Berlin a historical suggestion for non-aggression at Munich, and peace for Europe, with the formulation "that our 2 nations never go to war again". In March 1939, Hitler turned that offer down, by invading Rest-Czechoslovakia. To anybody who (at the time) was only even halfway informed, that meant that he was heading for the Heartland... Hitler made it clear that he was a "continental guy" who obviously "leaned east"...with a baseball bat. See Mein Kampf. So did Bismarck. Another "continental guy" who "leaned east" (with his right hand though by treaty/alliance/etc.). Wilhelm off course, "leaned west", or was "a navy guy"...

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard4 сарын өмнө
    • The only country forced into WW1 was Belgium. No other state did anything they had not already made contingencies for, before 1914. That makes WW1 a "War of Choice" for all the major powers.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard4 сарын өмнө
  • When was this documentary maid?

    ecv03ecv035 сарын өмнө
    • @Wiggly Shiz I do that sometimes.

      ecv03ecv033 сарын өмнө
    • I don't want to be that guy but it's "made" lol.

      Wiggly ShizWiggly Shiz3 сарын өмнө
    • 1998

      The History RoomThe History Room5 сарын өмнө
  • 82 years of being German Kaizer and being in exile and staying in Netherlands

    Gifigi600Gifigi6005 сарын өмнө
  • What was the reason for the 1st world war?

    5kehhn5kehhn5 сарын өмнө
    • Hat people I gradually begin to hate them

      DukeKenny93DukeKenny9323 өдрийн өмнө
    • @Unadin On 28 October 1918, promises were made for changes to the governmental system, to make it more accountable. But, these changes were made under the knowledge that things weren't looking good. Would they have promised such changes with a victory in sight? I doubt it, it just doesn't fit in the nature of the ruling elite of the time to do so. With a victory in sight, there's no need to offer change. Look at what they were preparing to enforce upon the Entente in the case of a victory. The only question in my mind is to what extent the military would relax their control of the system. Would they cede control back towards the Chancellor and the Kaiser, or would they seek to maintain and consolidate the predominance they had obtained during the war? Probably not, with a victory the Kaiser would take the credit, just as he was limbered with the blame when it went wrong. In reality, during the war he was increasingly marginalised and, to be honest, superfluous to requirements, serving as a figurehead and, as it turned out, a scapegoat. I think Wilson's decision to intimate that he would only deal with a democratic government, thus prompting Germany to give the Willy the boot, was possibly a mistake. The Kaiser Reich should have taken the blame for signing the Armistice, rather than giving the General's the opportunity to throw the new republic under the bus as they did. The revolution sweeping Germany would likely have ousted him anyway, or at least clipped his wings severely. The danger in leaving him in place? Given the level of public anger and hatred towards him around the world, there's the danger he would have been held accountable and given Germany a martyr (though it seems some people believe his "abdication" amounted to the same thing).

      BolivarBolivar4 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar Yes, but by regime change, I didn't necessarily mean something like the Bolshevik revolution, but some major structural changes to the government, ones that would have diminished the power of the Prussian military aristocracy.

      UnadinUnadin4 сарын өмнө
    • @Unadin With regards to Belgium, certainly by 1916, every decision Germany makes is a strategic one, based around what is seen as military necessity for the "next war". A neutral Belgium is an obstacle. A pro-German Belgium is an asset, very much "a pistol aimed at Britain's heart". I'm not sure we'd have seen a "regime change" in Germany following the war, but certainly there were calls for a change in the "system". During the July crisis, Bethmann realised that Germany could not be seen as the aggressor, she had to be seen to be fighting a defensive war. This was not just for world opinion, but very much for domestic opinion (Germany, in their 1912 elections, had returned a 34% Marxist-socialist Reichstag, in the SPD). They remained very much a thorn in Germany's side throughout the war. Bethmann tried to "ban" public war-aims discussions during the course of the war, realising that it was hard to maintain an image of a "defensive war" (already a "tough sell" when your defensive war is being fought on the enemy's territory, one of them previously neutral) when such annexationist policies are being openly discussed. Whilst the socialists _did_ vote for war credits to fund the war, there were calls at the time for enquiries to follow the cessation of hostilities to find out just what had happened to bring the war about. I certainly think there would have been a greater push for an "accountable" government following the war, but to just how far a victorious Germany would have acquiesced to such demands I'm unsure. This brings about an interesting "what-if" for me. What if Frederick III had survived longer on the throne? He certainly seems to have been in favour of a move towards a more accountable government. Even his "simple" change of making the Chancellor accountable to the Reichstag could have made significant differences to Germany's policies and decisions in the decades before 1914.

      BolivarBolivar4 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar Agreed. That's something Ralph and I discussed at one point. The idea that there should be any conditions imposed upon Belgium after the war was absurd. It would be like if you and I got into a fist fight, I picked up a dwarf and threw him at you, and then demanded an apology from the dwarf. Also, regarding the cold war comparison, the Cold War ended with the USSR coming to terms with some serious internal problems. It's not hard to imagine a similar scenario occurring if WW1 ended on even terms. Germans who travelled to other countries and had business dealings with people in other countries would start to wonder "why does everyone hate us now?" It would then have dawned on them that the problem was that their country was ruled by a small class of militaristic Prussians. Regime change would have been inevitable.

      UnadinUnadin4 сарын өмнө
  • my grandma always told us this rhyme : " Der Kaiser ist ein lieber Mann und wohnet in Berlin. Und wär´es nicht soweit von hier so ging ich heut´noch hin." ( The Kaiser is a nice man and lives in Berlin. And if it were´nt such far away i would walk this very day )

    kubanskiloewekubanskiloewe5 сарын өмнө
    • @Unadin different part; the effect of 1871 united very much whole germany but most of all it was the feeling of living in a "golden era" were many cities grew as cure cities with huge public free bulidings, baths an nice parks. Even the currency they switched from silver/gold mix to a pure gold standard ! Same as in england too. Also the very good and free education system was felt as a huge step forward ....you can see that on how much german scientists get the Nobel price in these years . Still the downside was a massive workforce with little rights in upcoming industries like iron, coal,chemestry,electrification, railroads, ships, colonial territory overseas and not at least troops and weapons.

      kubanskiloewekubanskiloewe5 сарын өмнө
    • Was your grandma Prussian, or from a different part of Germany?

      UnadinUnadin5 сарын өмнө
  • To address the various claims made re. the nature of this "propaganda hit piece" (sic.) and other comments. The documentary is based on the "Fisherian"-narrative of the historian Roehl, and therefore cannot be expected to include much in the nature of mitigating factors. Yes, war is a very emotional topic. People are obviously affected by emotions, and are also predestined to fall for emotional argumentation. The entire "sole German war guilt" is a position argued by apologists for actions/inactions of own warmongers, willing to use violence to achieve domination (militarism/imperialism) to this very day. *We as citizens are far too forgiving and lenient.* Fisher himself never made such a claim of "sole" German war guilt. He only made the case for that share of German war guilt which cannot be refuted. That however, does not mean that others were without guilt. From WSWS(dot)org "Already on its initial publication in the autumn of 1961, Fischer defended himself against the accusation that he was advancing a thesis of sole German guilt. Die Zeit had reviewed his book favourably, but talked of sole German guilt. *Fischer immediately refuted this in an article of his own in Die Zeit.* He wrote, “As grateful I am for the comprehensive appreciation of the book, I regret the subtitle given, ‘Professor Fischer’s thesis of (Germany’s) sole guilt for the First World War’. I have not used this expression in my book, rather I have expressly pointed out ‘that the collision of political-military interests, resentments and ideas that came into effect in the July crisis meant that the governments of the participating European powers shared responsibility for the outbreak of the world war in one way or another and to varying degrees.” Fischer stressed that he could not examine the political responsibility of all the European and international governments, because that would have demanded a multivolume mammoth work. *He focused on the special German war responsibility, in the hope that historians in other countries would be encouraged on their part to investigate the responsibility of their government."* [End of quote] In other words, he never intended to study what other states' leaders had done wrong. That was not the focus of his 2 books. It would have to be other historians, who would need to likewise uncover the guilt of *their* historical leaders, regarding the tragedy of an easily avoidable world war. Apparently, that was not forthcoming. *Nobody took up Fisher's challenge.* Instead, his works became an easy to misuse tool of the "deflectors", and the "finger pointers", for the own "feelgood"-version of history...

    Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
  • At 19:50 minutes "1912: Had provoked 3 powers to ally against him". Interesting conclusion, seeing how that had a long history which had already started much earlier. For example the Moroccan Crisis roughly the time of the internal "Eulenberg scandal" mentioned here at 16:45 minutes. The first Morocco Crisis (1905) was of course an international crisis, with wide-ranging impact. Of course, nothing happens "in a bubble". Neither today, nor 100, or 150 years ago. The world was already *"global"* and all issues were "global". Unlike our "history books" suggest, which try to isolate events like crises... History books use a variety of techniques, to "spin" information to suite a predetermined outcome. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking So, what else was happening at the time? (1905) Lemme think reeeeeaaaal hard...

    Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard They could never have gotten British support. They knew this full well. They knew they wouldn't be able to refuel and resupply at any neutral ports (Britain had declared strict neutrality on Feb 10 1904, closing it's ports and roadsteads to both belligerents, observing the International Laws of the time). Russia was relying on benevolent neutrality from France [reluctantly] and Germany [not quite so reluctantly, at first]. It was hardly "stupidity". Russia had 3 fleets. One [Pacific] was in mortal [turned out to be fatal] danger. One [Black Sea] was Treaty bound and therefore of no use. That left one fleet [Baltic] to provide relief and reinforcement to the beleaguered Pacific Fleet. It was an extreme measure, but they had nothing to lose and everything to gain. They had no option.

      BolivarBolivar5 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar Agreed up to your final paragraph. No, it was a "feat" of unprecedented stupidity", irrelevant of whether they went through the Med and Suez, at the mercy of the Royal Navy, *or any other route.* Sailing a rather novel fleet re. technical advances (sail to steam being rather untried for the Russian navy, and ships and crews used to cold water) even under the *most favorable circumstances* of *full British support* would have already been "a feat". Without British support (ports, coaling stations, docks, etc.) it was folly even before it started. Irrelevant of the route chosen.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard "websites" ah, the source of choice for ... well, nobody but you, it seems. Websites ... I wonder how many of them research their material, and how many just (as you yourself favour) copy/paste from other sites to "pad out" their content? How many of these "websites" use attributable sources and authors? How many people are like you, and would just "assume" that any fleet would _obviously_ choose the short route? I wonder how many people would think, especially those paranoid about the security of said fleet, would think "Trying to sail 31 large warships and their support vessels through the bottleneck of the Suez canal, with no room for manoeuvre or defence, is a really bad idea ..." [Let alone a logistical nightmare of absolutely colossal proportions] How many would think "Erm ... The British have a Treaty with Japan, what if they decide to intern the fleet in Suez?" I wonder how many of these people realise just how long it takes to arrange for the coaling and provisioning requirements for a fleet of this size, and just how far in advance such plans would need to be made, to allow for the transport of said coaling fleets and supplies? If you think sailing around Africa the long way is a silly idea, then you should bare in mind that the French wanted them to sail around Cape Horn and across the Polynesian Archipelago to get to their destination. TLDR : They were always going the way they did, and for very good reason, and it was planned long in advance [it needed to be]. It was a feat of naval logistics virtually unparalleled to this day.. Edit : How many of these websites also "assume" that Britain "closed Suez" to the Russians? [again, provable to be an untruth]

      BolivarBolivar5 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar No, I have stated that I will look for evidence to corroborate the author's claim, which happens to go against acknowledged history. Anything wrong with that?

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard I see, you’ve not even read it and yet you are prepared to class, and dismiss, it as fiction and a mere novel? I would say you have very much “judged” it. Worse, you have done so without the benefit of either facts or experience, but purely as an attempt to dismiss it from the argument (it showing clearly your argument to be nonsense).

      BolivarBolivar5 сарын өмнө
  • The world is absolutely terrified of the German people. Germans and their descendants will always be on top

    A Pacifist Machine GunnerA Pacifist Machine Gunner5 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolthro Veblu umm... look at Germany today..? Look at the German Descendants in America? We dominate every square inch of the planet and it drives you crazy huh

      A Pacifist Machine GunnerA Pacifist Machine Gunner5 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolthro Veblu Reality has proved you wrong. Germans are still on top

      A Pacifist Machine GunnerA Pacifist Machine Gunner5 сарын өмнө
  • It "started" quite innocently, way before WW1. *With a London policy.* The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the rival/enemy" as a default setting... [britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power] *According to London's own policy:* "Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, *and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side,* guided largely by one consideration-the maintenance of the balance itself." *The Germans, became "the rival/enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).* They took over this "role" from France, after 1871. They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society. *Note: nothing personal.* The policy didn't mention any names. It was simply "policy". Make the strongest country/alliance the rival, and "balance it out". Nothing personal. It could be France one day, Russia the next. It could be "alliance x" one day, it could be "alliance y" the next. "Temporary friends" one day, "temporary rival/enemy" the next. After 1871, and especially after German industrialisation, it was simply Germany/the Dual Alliance. *A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy.* It came first before all other considerations. It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding 1) alliances (or no alliances) 2) treaties (or no treaties) 3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord) 4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle) 5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint) 6) when to engage in arms races 7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences/arms limitations or during international political differences. *Go over your history, and spot the "handwriting"...*

    Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar Sure, buddy. You know what it's about, because I told you ;-) See my op. For an honest treaty, at eye level, London would have had to bury their self-appointed role of "balancer". They chose not to. So, as I've said a few times before: by trying to "defend everything", they ended up "defending nothing", and got beat at their own game. *Using a geographical advantage (and their navy) as "leverage" in "deals" in which they never committed themselves.* Meanwhile, over on the other side of the Atlantic. Washington DC/The American Century: "Hmmmm...we can play that game too..."

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard Educate yourself. I have neither the time nor the crayons to do it for you ;-)

      BolivarBolivar5 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar Don't try to bs me. @Bolivar I never said London *had to* do anything. It's a free world, and Berlin was available for an honest collaboration on eye level, *not the wishy-washy non-committing agreements it made with others.* London chose not to. Where that ended, see my first comment. London became a victim of her own attitude problem. *What "offer" did London make, and when?*

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard Oh I do. Germany turned down London's advances with the view that, if they could continue to isolate Britain, they would be able to secure the alliance they wanted very much on Germany's terms. (Yes, Britain, we'd love an alliance, but maybe later ...) Problem? Germany wasn't the only candy shop in town. Of course, Germany never thought Britain would be able to patch up it's differences with France (but then again, they never thought _THE_ Republic would ever be able to agree terms with _THE_ Monarchy.) Oh well ... 2nd Problem, Germany tried to apply leverage in the shape of a fleet. Germany doesn't understand leverage either, it seems.

      BolivarBolivar5 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar Apparently, you don't understand "leverage"...

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
  • He didn’t like anyone dying. He hated it in fact.

    Silas BellinoSilas Bellino5 сарын өмнө
  • "1911 Encyclopedia Britannica; Balance of Power; The Nuttall Encyclopedia; Balance of Power ; A phrase in international law for such a "just equilibrium" between the members of the family of nations as should. prevent any one of them from becoming sufficiently strong to enforce its will upon the rest. The principle involved in this, as Hume pointed out in his Essay on the Balance of Power…" www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I/Technology-of-war-in-1914 [Britannica] In principle, not a bad thing. Unfortunately, by 1914 the 2 "blocks" of alliance partners had completely skewed the old system of "balancing" the power of countries. The two resulting blocks were fairly equally balanced in terms of GDP, military forces, education of the population, industrial might, technology, etc. But concerning other criteria re. "power", like a strategic advantage, access to raw materials, population, global reach, etc. the Tripple Alliance was becoming rapidly "outbalanced" by the Tripple Entente, and intended to correct this resulting "imbalance". European leaders had long foreseen the potential disaster of a "great war" scenario in times of modern warfare. Improvements in technology, meant ever more devastating weapons. Weapons wielded by mass armies (result of the late-19th Century population explosion). Industrialization, the potential for all encompassing "total wars". From Moltke the Elder in the mid-19th century [The days are gone by when, for dynastical ends, small armies of professional soldiers went to war to conquer a city, or a province, and then sought winter quarters or made peace. The wars of the present day call whole nations to arms.... The entire financial resources of the State are appropriated to military purposes...] to Churchill in 1901 [ We must not regard war with a modern Power as a kind of game….A European war cannot be anything but a cruel, heartrending struggle (ending) in the ruin of the vanquished and the scarcely less fatal commercial dislocation and exhaustion of the conquerors. -1901, 13 May, House of Commons] *The inflexibility of the alliance system would turn out to be the end of Europe.* According to common practice "states can pursue a policy of balance of power in two ways: by increasing their own power, as when engaging in an armaments race or in the competitive acquisition of territory; *or by adding to their own power that of other states,* as when embarking upon a policy of alliances." [Britannica] Because none of the other powers were willing to address the increasing imbalance (as the years passed), Germany/Austria-Hungary set upon a path of increasing both their "power" as well as a more favorable strategic position, by allying with the Ottoman Empire. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93German_alliance

    Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard "Information about an Anglo-German Alliance are pretty scarce" Yea, rocking horse droppings.

      BolivarBolivar5 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard Haven't got any links off the top of my head. Look for 1898/9 and 1901 if I recall correctly. Edit : The 1901 discussions were a clusterf*ck, hampered in no small part by the duplicitous dealings of a certain German diplomat, Eckhardstein, who was acting _way_ outside of his remit, and trying to secure an alliance by feeding both sides "selective" and "non-factual" information. From the British point of view, the same sticking point remained, that of the Triple Alliance. From the German point of view, Holstein, though keen to secure an Anglo-German Alliance, very much wanted it to be on Germany's terms, and was prepared to put-off any agreement until Britain came begging. Problem for Holstein? Germany wasn't the only candy shop in town. His second problem came in the shape of a large German fleet, which he knew was going to be a sore point for the British.

      BolivarBolivar5 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar I might have read about that at some point, but it doesn't ring a bell. Do you have a link to those negotiations? Information about an Anglo-German Alliance are pretty scarce, on the internet, but I've not heard about any German suggestions for GB to join the Tripple Alliance. Maybe indirectly, via an accord between London and Berlin?

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard I'm not forgetting about anything. It all ties in with the prominence that the Alliance systems had taken at the time. Take Germany insisting that any alliance with Britain would have to include being a partner to the Triple Alliance. Of course, Britain was not allowed to see the Triple Alliance at that time, she would be required to agree in principal to such an alliance and only then she would be allowed to see what she was signing up to.

      BolivarBolivar5 сарын өмнө
    • Partly correct.. You are forgetting about all the secret schemes (note, not singling anybody out, because all were guilty of this systemic failure). Leaders and powermongers were constantly sneaking around, "a little backroom deal here", and little "secret addendum" to a treaty there. Something like 75% of all agreements were secret. "Aces up sleeves", and so on. Since all the powers were doing it, all the powers also suspected (correctly) that everyone else was doing it too. It created the fallacious principle of "everyone is doing it, so it can't be wrong". The entire system of doing things was flawed. One might not like Wilson as a US President, but that is one thing he got right at Versailles. Pointing out how secret diplomacy had created an air of mistrust.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
  • Seeing as how the weather is not cooperating with my schedule, I will post a third comment. This time I will talk not about the causes of WW1 but Wilhelm II as an individual. After all, that's what this documentary is really about. 1. Prussia (and later Germany) was governed by a military aristocracy. A man's worth was determined by how good of a soldier he was. A society like this can work, but it needs the right kind of leader. What it needs is a leader who can earn the respect of others in that society, but who is enlightened enough to project a benign image to the rest of the world. Frederick the Great and Bismarck did this. Wilhelm II did not. 2. As I mentioned before, the great powers of Europe were similar to the ancient Greek city states. The most obvious comparison to Prussia would be Sparta. Had Wilhelm been born in ancient Sparta, we would have been killed shortly after birth. A boy born with deformities that rendered him unable to serve in the military was considered worthless, and would be tossed off of a cliff. 19th century Prussians were a bit more civilized, but even so, Wilhelm would have felt the same sense of worthlessness. 3. Some people born with deformities decide that the only one whose opinion matters is their own. Had Wilhelm done this he would have talked to all of Germany's politicians and generals with the attitude of "Yeah, I have a withered arm, but I am still the Kaiser. I don't care what you think of me. I am your boss and you will do what I say." Instead, he seemed to constantly crave their approval and acceptance. He demonstrated this by having them take part in his stupid male bonding rituals. He revealed his insecurities with macho stunts, such as ordering Annie Oakley to shoot the cigarette out of his mouth. However, instead of earning people's respect by doing these things, he presented an image of an insecure man who desperately wanted their approval. 4. At that time in history, the essence of good diplomacy was to walk softly but carry a big stick. You present a kind and benevolent image to other leaders, while using subtle means to make it clear that you can back up whatever you request/demand. Wilhelm II did the opposite. He came across as a fire breathing dragon even though he didn't really have control over the German military. When dealing with a foreign country, you like to think that if a war breaks out, there is a person you can talk to on the other side who can bring about a cease to hostilities, and who can make the deals that must be made to end the war. Germany did not have such a person. That's one of the reasons why the war dragged on as long as it did.

    UnadinUnadin5 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar Just a follow up to some of the things we discussed. I have mentioned imperial Japan a few times, and it provides a good example of how in the absence of a strong leader, different military leaders will pursue different strategies. You had mentioned the lack of coordination between generals and politicians leading up to WW1, and I see much of the same thing when looking at Japan's actions in Manchuria. The war in Manchuria did not start by way of official orders from Tokyo. Two colonels took it upon the themselves to start the conflict. They had the approval of their general, but his chief of staff insisted that they get approval from Tokyo. A general was sent with a letter forbidding any provocative action. He took his time in getting there and when he finally arrived, he did not immediately present it to the general in Manchuria. Instead, he spent the night in a geisha house. While he was there, the two colonels set off a bomb, which they used as an excuse to begin fighting Chinese forces. I see this as similar to the type of confusion and miscommunications that preceded WW1. This is why I think imperial Japan is a better analogy for Kaiserreich Germany than NAZI Germany. With NAZI Germany, you had a strong leader who ordered his forces to do bad things. With Kaiserreich Germany and imperial Japan, you had a weak monarch and weak elected politicians who failed to stop the military establishment/aristocracy from doing bad things (although some would argue that Hiro Hito was not so innocent either).

      UnadinUnadin5 сарын өмнө
    • @Unadin He answered to the Kaiser, and not to the Reichstag, yes [he offered his resignation on the Kaiser's return to Berlin, which was refused]. But the powers lay with the Chancellor. The decisions made, in July/August were Bethmann's, it was his [doomed] policy that he followed during that period. Again, as to how much influence the military leaders had on his decisions is open to question and interpretation. He knew he risked a wider conflict, and was obviously prepared to risk this. Here the OHL had stressed that such a conflict was winnable in 1914, but whether, and to what extent, this governed his actions during the crisis is unsure. Edit : TLDR : I don't think it's possible to "pin blame" onto any one single person or group of people. To my mind, it was the German "system" that ultimately failed.

      BolivarBolivar5 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar I don't mean to split hairs, but as you pointed out earlier, the chancellor was appointed by the Kaiser, so ultimately he was a servant of the military aristocracy.

      UnadinUnadin5 сарын өмнө
    • @Unadin We are in agreement with regards German Militarism, there's absolutely no doubt about that. My comment on the "civilian powers" was in specific respect to the July crisis, where it was very much Bethmann in "control" of the situation as it developed in Berlin. Yes, he had the OHL whispering in his ear, but the decisions made were very much Bethmann's. How much influence the military leadership had on these decisions is, to a large degree, open to interpretation.

      BolivarBolivar5 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard "It is often stated, and not controversial, that Bismarck intentionally provoked a war. True." Great, we agree.

      BolivarBolivar5 сарын өмнө
  • WWI like all other wars was financed and orchestrated by DEEP STATE BANKSTERS...they always invent thousand lies and reasons to destroy Germany..jealousy is a very lowlife emotion...

    Sybille NovaSybille Nova5 сарын өмнө
    • And I gradually became to hate them

      DukeKenny93DukeKenny9323 өдрийн өмнө
    • @Unadin amen

      Géo PolitiqueGéo Politique2 сарын өмнө
    • Wars have been going on since before there was a country called Germany, before there were banks, and before there were people. Rival animal clans fight wars.

      UnadinUnadin5 сарын өмнө
  • Kaiser Wilhelm is the uncle of Prince Philipos of Greece, Denmark & Germany, who married Frau Betty von Saxe-Coburg-Gotha und Windsor (Although the name of Windsor was never voted on by the British Parliament or any other parliament in the British Empire. It was only said between King Georg V of England and Hannover and his private secretary.

    Darren Rodney SalesDarren Rodney Sales5 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolthro Veblu What part of my original comment did you take to be either bigoted or anti-Semitic?

      BolivarBolivar5 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolthro Veblu **sniff sniff** Ah ... the unmistakable reek of anti-Semitism and bigotry ...

      BolivarBolivar5 сарын өмнө
    • "Although the name of Windsor was never voted on by the British Parliament" It didn't need to be. _Anyone_ can change their name in the UK by a simple deed poll, for any reason and for free (though some institutions, such as banks, require an "enrolled deed poll").

      BolivarBolivar5 сарын өмнө
  • The Kaiser was NOT responsible for WWI and he did not start it. Of course he played a significant part but we’ve been made to believe the responsibility was all his.

    GentleGirl JackGentleGirl Jack5 сарын өмнө
    • @BleenBlock 85 That's a rather speculative claim. Rival powers had been fighting over eastern Europe for centuries. Is it really surprising that the major powers of the region at that time (i.e. Russia, Germany, and AH), might do the same? Germany did not have much in the way of a colonial empire. Bismarck could have claimed more land for Germany in Africa but decided not to.

      UnadinUnadin5 сарын өмнө
    • Britain was responsible for WWI. They didn´t like the rise of Germany and german colonies.

      BleenBlock 85BleenBlock 855 сарын өмнө
  • Wilhelm II, and the "hypocrisy of history"... At the time, all major powers continued their ambitions of territorial expansion at the cost of minor sovereign states. France attacked Siam, with a subsequent "little bit of land grabbing" (Laos) in 1893. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Siamese_War ...or the so-called "Agadir Crisis"**. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agadir_Crisis Apparently, oh so righteous France didn't care much about the sovereignty of "little nations" when it came to expanding an own sphere of influence... WIlhelm II who stood up for the "little nation" here (obviously, and as always in history with an own ulterior motive) was labeled the "bad guy" (see below). Elsewhere, the USA eclipsed and annexed the "little nation" called the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1898, and invaded and carved up Colombia when it wanted to build its Panama Canal... 2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/gp/17661.htm en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_Panama_from_Colombia Of course, the locals were absolutely enchanted... Constant British attempts to annex the internationally recognized Boer Republics because of own geopolitical ambitions... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Boer_War en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War Of course, Wilhelm II, again "standing up for the little nation" was the "bad guy"...go figure. Apparently, the sovereignty of little nations wasn't a big deal... In the endless lists of crises, wars, military conquests, false flags, intrigues, and "expeditions" by warlike private companies, *all with the objective of expanding the own sphere of influence,* Wilhelm II's Germany must have seemed like a haven for pacifists to a neutral observer of history. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1800%E2%80%9399 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1900%E2%80%9344 Death was lavishly sown in return for own gain.

    Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar Yes, that is all correct. The arrogance of power of European leaders led to the death of a 1,000-year old sovereign state (Morocco). Mind you, the locals fared better in the French south, with a governor sympathetic to the Arab cause, than in the Spanish north, or of course the original inhabitants in Algeria. It depended a lot on who was designated to govern.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard a) all I have done is to point out is that Germany's "interest" in Morocco was in no way "altruistic", he had the same agenda as the other colonial powers, self interest. b) I stated why Gemany "wasn't invited". They weren't a signatory to the treaties which determined the sphere's of influence there. von Bülow, however, saw this as a "slight" to German prestige, that some "decision" was being made somewhere without consulting Germany. Holstein saw it as an opportunity and the naval advocates were thinking "coaling stations". c) I don't have a problem with "ze Jermins", I merely try to see why the people of the time made the decisions they did in 1914. Popping on my rose tinted glasses and clicking the heels of my ruby slippers isn't going to help. Edit : Just to clarify. _None_ of these people, at this time, had what could be called a "healthy world view".

      BolivarBolivar5 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar Of course you could simply express sympathy for the local victims according to the biblical principle "putting yourself in their shoes" rather that *first* looking at *who* carries out the crime? Or simply acknowledge that in the past we didn't exactly send out our best. Who exactly was *on home turf* and who was 500, 5,000 or 9,000 miles away from home? And yes, that counts for my home country South Africa in the same way as everybody else. You want to discuss South Africa? Fine. I don't fear the truth... What's your obsessions with "ze Jermins"? Or is it merely a convenient tool to *"point fingers elsewhere"* or *"ignore the splinters in the own eye"* if confronted with criticism?

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard "Note that he pointed out that Moroccan independence was worth honoring." His "pretext" may have been "right", but that wasn't the reason he was there.

      BolivarBolivar5 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard Love the way you rely on unattributed articles/blog posts with zero citations for sources. Very studious of you...

      BolivarBolivar5 сарын өмнө
  • Interesting footage at times, but overall this doc is trash.

    PGeePGee5 сарын өмнө
    • A total national-centric hit piece, while ignoring its own nationalism.

      Wild Mountain GwendyWild Mountain Gwendy2 сарын өмнө
    • totally agreed. One sided and one dimensional.

      bLOCKbOYgAMESbLOCKbOYgAMES4 сарын өмнө
  • 26:49

    Kat NosKat Nos5 сарын өмнө
  • Bismarck's Reinsurance Treaty is often stated as an example of wise diplomacy, in order to avoid "great war"-scenarios, by creating (de jure) deadlock situations. From wiki: "The treaty signed by Bismarck and the Russian Foreign Minister Nikolay Girs had two parts: Germany and Russia each agreed to observe *benevolent neutrality* should the other become involved in a war with a third country. If Germany attacked France or if Russia attacked Austria-Hungary, this provision would not apply. In those cases, the distinguished bilateral alliances could come into effect. The Reinsurance Treaty only applied when France or Austria-Hungary were the aggressors. In the most secret completion protocol, Germany would declare neutrality in the event of a Russian intervention against the Ottoman control of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles." Hmmm. "Most secret" :-) Of course, the "most secret part" set Russian forces free to serve...ahem..."elsewhere". Wonder where that would be, and who it would be directed at... Notice however how the "benevolent neutrality" created a situation of deadlock in Central and Western Europe. Unless Germany was the aggressor, it would remain safe, and it could likewise influence Vienna/Budapest to remain docile in the Balkans. Benevolent neutrality, in layman's terms, meant that "if you are the aggressor, I'm free to act as I please" (no "tied hands"-clauses). But if you are the *victim* of a 3rd party's aggression, then *you* are free to act as you please, and I'll remain neutral (again, no "tied hands"-conditions). Yes, Bismarck's wisdom is often praised, but often not analyzed sufficiently regarding later European treaties. The strategic precedent caused by neutrality treaties or clauses in treaties often have a wide-ranging impact. In regards to the Reinsurance Treaty it set St. Petersburg free to send the majority of its forces south and east, for as long as the treaty remained intact. On a sidenote, many years later, a similar "neutrality accord" led to war in the Pacific. In April 1941 Stalin concluded a neutrality agreement with Japan, meaning that they were now free to "focus elsewhere". With that, the IJA's (army's grand strategy preference) focus on expansion in China, and the majority of Japan's military resources, was replaced by the IJN's (navy's grand strategy preference) expansion south, into the weakened (by WW2 in Europe) colonial powers' territories in SE Asia.

    Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard "then a little bit of "blood and iron" would be in order for the higher ideal." We saw how that "ideal" worked out in 1914 ...

      BolivarBolivar5 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar The "iron/blood" motto is the Machiavellian "if you want something, fight for it" in a very Machiavellian world. In the past, Central Europe had been the "punching bag" of any and every wannabe tough guy wishing to expand their empires. From Sweden, Denmark, to the later France (Napoleon). Civilians, as well as the "divided and ruled over" elites, all paid the price in some way or the other. The "rule of the world" went through Central Europe. A statement attributed to Bismarck (but not provably) goes like this: "he who rules Bohemia, rules Europe" (or something like that, I forget the exact words). At the time, reflecting the status of technology and therefore "power" at the time, Bohemia was for all practical reasons "the center of the modern world" (at the time). Anyway. To make a long story short. If the inhabitants of this "center of the world" (at that time) wanted to stop becoming the victims of the whims of outsiders, they would *have* to unite. And if the local little rivalries and animosities couldn't be bridged with "kind words/reason/logic/harsh language", then a little bit of "blood and iron" would be in order for the higher ideal. *Collective security, offered by unity.* Pity, *Europe* failed to grasp what Bismarck was *really* about :-(

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar Dude, I know. It's a joke, relax ;-)

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard The proper quote you are attempting to cite is taken out of context and actually reads as thus : "Germany is not looking to Prussia’s liberalism, but to its power; Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden may indulge liberalism, and for that reason no one will assign them Prussia’s role; Prussia has to coalesce and concentrate its power for the opportune moment, which has already been missed several times; Prussia’s borders according to the Vienna Treaties [of 1814-15] are not favorable for a healthy, vital state; it is not by speeches and majority resolutions that the great questions of the time are decided - that was the big mistake of 1848 and 1849 - but by iron and blood." - Otto von Bismarck. 30 September 1862. The context for his "iron and blood" is clear.

      BolivarBolivar5 сарын өмнө
    • 30 years later, Stalin played the same game. End effect? He advanced his communist "empire". The British lost theirs.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
  • Great video! The footage was astonishing

    Phelix HartmanPhelix Hartman5 сарын өмнө
  • If I can push my luck a bit further, I want to restate a few points I have made about Belgium. I have seen a number of comments in which people have pointed out the hypocrisy of the western powers in condemning Germany's invasion of Belgium. The stories of German atrocities there were grossly exaggerated, and Germany's conduct in Belgium paled in comparison to things that Europeans were doing in their overseas colonies. Ironically, Belgium was one of the worst offenders, although it is worth pointing out the Germans were not very kind to their colonial subjects either. Germany's invasion of Belgium may not have been a crime against humanity, but it was still very much wrong, for the simple reason that it broke the rules. Rules and morality are not always one in the same. Certain conduct may not be altogether evil, but if it breaks the rules, then it sets a dangerous precedent. Here's why: 1. 18th and 19th century Europe had a balance of power arrangement similar to that of the ancient Greek city states. In both cases, you had powerful states in close proximity to one another. The ancient Greeks had a mutual respect for each other, but much like the great powers of Europe, they were not so kind to their overseas colonial subjects. They frequently went to war with each other, but they were not genocidal wars of conquest but limited wars, in which the warring states would follow strict rules of conduct. If a city state broke the rules, other city states might intervene on behalf of its enemy. One rule was that a city state located upstream from its enemy could not tamper with its enemy's water supply. We would look at this and say "What's the big deal? If blocking the water brings a quicker end to the war, then fewer people will die. Isn't that good?" However, the ancient Greeks viewed it as cheating. It seems strange that a civilization that conquered and enslaved people around the Mediterranean, and who were willing to kill each other in war, would get upset about something like that. But when you think about it, it actually makes sense. If they allowed that, then the lowland city states would have to completely revise their defense strategies. A powerful lowland state might decide to conquer its weaker upstream neighbor just to prevent that scenario from occurring. 2. Over the course of history, there have been different types of defense arrangements. During the Cold War, much of the world consisted of giant alliances. Some of the border regions were viewed as hot spots, e.g. Korea and Germany. America and other NATO powers stationed many thousands of troops there to serve as a deterrent force. That sort of arrangement would not have worked in 19th century Europe. In order for a civilization to prosper, there needs to be a free flow of travel, commerce, and ideas. If every European nation became like a fortress, it would lead to cultural and economic stagnation. 3. What if the Von Schlieffen plan had worked and Germany won the war? This would have sent a message to all of Europe's smaller and weaker countries that it wouldn't be enough to simply make alliances with powerful countries. If they really wanted to secure their borders, they would need to allow their powerful allies to station troops in their countries during peace time. Would it be reasonable to expect Belgians to play host to thousands of British soldiers? For that matter, would Germans have liked the idea of there being thousands of British troops right outside their border? Would Germany have had to station troops in the lands of their weaker allies, e.g. Bulgaria? 4. As I said earlier, rules and morality are not always one in the same. However, when you have a balance of power arrangement like Europe at the beginning of the 20th century, the rules can be just as important. The invasion of Belgium may not have been a crime against humanity, but it was cheating, and in the long run, that can have as disruptive an effect as any moral atrocity. As I stated in another comment thread, Germany's ambitions were not evil by the standards of that time, but they broke the rules in their efforts to achieve them. If the only way that Germany could win the war was to cheat, then they never should have gone to war in the first place.

    UnadinUnadin6 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar OK fine. Thought it was obvious. Hitler: "Here I come. Vant sum Polnish Lebenstraum...yihaaa..." Happy?

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard Ran out of arguments? Can't defend your own case? Now you change the subject ... Predictable. And here's the "popcorn and chips" line ... Predictable. Oh, and you forgot to include Germany in your little "tirade" ... HIghly predictable and totally expected.

      BolivarBolivar5 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar And since I already know how you are going to answer. Here is my answer, to your future answer ;-) I never said the Nazis were the good guys. The Nazis never claimed to be "the defenders of little nations". Simple. Two wrongs, don't create "rights". Two wrongs, simply create more wrongs. If you advocate that the answer to "wrongs" is "more wrongs" you *will* lose.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar I'm not done yet. Allow me to dumb down "the big picture" a little: Poland: Help me, I'm dying!! Stalin: Gee sowwy. I never knew a little signature could start such a riot. Ah well, popcorn and chips...gweat show btw, je je je... London to Paris: Ok...you first. Paris to London: Nah, I'm good. You first... Italy: Getting into hyena mode here. USA: Don't look at me. I said *14 points* so too bad. London/Paris: Together? But, how about some *"soft overbelly first?"* Paris: Yeah, that Siegfried Line sure looks bad... Norway/Sweden: [Gulp] *Spew forth, the apologia.*

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar Here's another novel idea... How about *instead of* constantly scheming to "cut off" the iron ore in neutral countries (obviously with an intention to provoke a response), *how about "cutting it off" in the Ruhr* by actually carrying out the war they declared to "save poor people"? Oh wait. They were afraid of *"hanging up the washing on the Siegfried line"* rotfl Looks like it's one thing singing nursery rhymes, another all together of putting your money where your mouth is.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
  • After 24:00 minutes, the account is a drastic oversimplification of the events after the issuing of the A-H ultimatum to Serbia. At this point in time, there were still ample opportunities to avoid war, and/or a further escalation of the (still) July Crisis. In the years leading up to 1914, hundreds of good men from all sides spent thousands of hours discussing, and putting down in words, exactly what would distinguish "the world" from a "bar room". All the signatories would have to do to avoid *confusion/unclear political situations,* thereby creating/leading to *dangerous state of affairs* (in the existing militarist environment of M-A-I-N) was stick to the recommendations made, and affirmed by International Law. There is no particular order in which states can use the diplomatic (like neutrality declarations, or declarations of war) or military "tools" (like mobilizations, troop movements) at their disposal. These signal intent, or *add weight* as opposed to merely using "harsh language". It's about states. Not thugs in a bar room shouting "I warned you not to do it". Believe it or not, but "threats" don't mean anything. It can also be the "bluffing" mentioned in the history books we read. In the bar room brawl scenario, the difference would be shouting *"I'm warning you!"* and actually taking out a phone and calming saying "I'm phoning the police." Nothing counts as much as actually "putting your money where your mouth is". One can simply refer to British and French diplomatic/military actions of 1939 as examples of *true* diplomacy for "just wanting peace". Of course, Russia could also have issued an open ultimatum to Vienna/Budapest first, threatening a declaration of war (diplomatic last resort) and full mobilization (first military move) if not met, stating at the same time to Berlin that it already had Paris' support for such an ultimatum, and their full mobilization "with 800,000 French soldiers" was already decided upon in St Petersburg. London could then also have "clubbed in" at this early stage (late-July), stating its intention to join any resulting war on the continent as the "balancer" or "decider"** (a stance already affirmed by discussions in London), making it clear that *no side* would gain from an escalation of a local conflict. Of course, there is no particular order in which a state can signal intent. It just has to match the circumstances.

    Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard6 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar Yes, that is a good summary. Unfortunately, as you mentioned in the other thread to Unadin, Europe was set in its ways of constantly trying to balance/re-balance/un-balance each other. The necessity for change seemed to have been there, as well as the realization that a "great war" scenario would be catastrophic for both winners and losers as technology increased the destructive power of weapons. Unfortunately, the realization was not matched with the corresponding sense of urgency to change the status quo. The following short essay re. "European Balance of Powers" might interest you, since it fits in nicely with what you wrote to Unadin. www.sparknotes.com/history/european/1871-1914/section8/ Here, the conclusion of the author: 1. With all of Europe united against France [note, re. the creation of the Concert of Europe after the Napoleonic Wars] , the creation of a balance against one enemy was quite simple; however, as time passed and French aggression seemed less and less likely, a more complex Europe emerged in place of the simple All versus France. 2. The consolidation of Germany and Italy as strong nation-states upset the balance completely. With new players in the game of European geopolitics, the old logic did not hold: *though Europe failed to react.* 3. The advancement of technology in warfare changed the criteria of power. Whereas in Napoleonic times population and infantry forces made a great power, the dawn of the twentieth century saw the increased importance of battleships, submarines, troop mobility via trains, et cetera, that could not be balanced by the fortification of a neighbor, but rather only by a dangerous arms race.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard You have to admit, it's a huge gamble. We can agree on what Bethmann's hopes/intentions were, quick action and fait accompli, but the wheels were falling off that wagon one by one. The element of speed was lost from the outset [Austrian harvest leave]. Now secrecy is apparently lost as Russia, Bethmann surmised, is obviously aware of the intended Austrian ultimatum [They actually became aware of it 16 July]. If the Russian's are bluffing, then that's good. If they aren't, then Austrian mobilisation would likely be met with Russian mobilisation. Whilst he may be hoping that France would seek to restrain Russia, as they had done in 1908, likewise, Russia, France and England were assuming that Germany, in it's position of non-intervention, would seek to restrain Austria, as they had done in 1912. In this matter, Bethmann's hands were tied by the guarantee given to Vienna on 5 July, whereby Austria was given free rein. Given his obvious concern's, both at the time of the guarantee and later as the crisis developed, delivering this warning to Austria may have given them pause to think, and thus presented Bethmann with "a way out" without being seen to be going back on the guarantee. Of course, it may not have made any difference at all. This was probably a once in a lifetime chance for Austria.

      BolivarBolivar5 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar Yes, some serious scheming. But at even at this late point Berlin/Vienna still didn't think Russia and France had serious plans to come to Serbia's aid. See the following exchanges: " On the night of 23 July, Serbian Regent Crown Prince Alexander visited the Russian legation to "express his despair over the Austrian ultimatum, compliance with which he regards as an absolute impossibility for a state which had the slightest regard for its dignity".[94] *Both the Regent and Pašić asked for Russian support, which was refused.[94] Sazonov offered the Serbs only moral support while Nicholas told the Serbs to simply accept the ultimatum,* and hope that international opinion would force the Austrians to change their minds.[95] Both Russia and France, because of their military weaknesses, were most disinclined to risk a war with Germany in 1914, and *hence the pressure on Serbia to accede to the terms of the Austrian ultimatum.* Because the Austrians had repeatedly promised the Russians that nothing was planned against Serbia that summer, their harsh ultimatum did not do much to antagonize Sazonov. Confronted with the ultimatum and the lack of support from other European powers, the Serbian Cabinet worked out a compromise.[97] Historians disagree on the extent to which the Serbs genuinely compromised. Some historians argue Serbia accepted all of the terms of the ultimatum except for the demand in point 6 that Austrian police be allowed to operate in Serbia." [Wiki] Of course the idea was still for a quick military campaign and a subsequent fait accompli, *because* the attitude was still that the world's sympathy lay with A-H and not with Serbia, and that Russia was just bluffing.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard So, back to the Russian warnings of 21st July. Why did Germany not pass this information on to Austria-Hungary? You don't think something like this would be relevant to them? At this point in time, the ultimatum to Serbia hadn't been delivered, that is still two days away. Nobody had mobilised, that is 3 to 4 days away. You said yourself that Russia could have done something. Well, Russia did do something. It stated it's position clearly and precisely. Russia, from that point on [21st July] is operating on the assumption that Austria-Hungary has received the ultimatum. Austria's actions in continuing with her intentions are going to be seen in Russia as a clear refusal of the ultimatum [Russia hasn't been told that Austria hasn't received the ultimatum].

      BolivarBolivar5 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar Not my statement. My point is written in the lines above. WW1 was probably the most easily avoidable wars in history. You're still looking for innocence where there was none.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard6 сарын өмнө
  • This documentary is not propaganda. "Propaganda" would be a misnomer. More accurately is to point out the "establishment of a narrative" favorable to the own side... *Anchoring or focalism:* The tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor", on one trait or piece of information when making decisions (usually the first piece of information acquired on that subject). ...and... *Availability cascade:* A self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or "repeat something long enough and it will become true"). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases Or, get in there early with your story, and tell it again and again and again and again... Once it is established, convincing millions that something in the story is off, gets more and more difficult.

    Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard6 сарын өмнө
  • At 25:00 minutes The Austrian-Hungarian declaration of war on Serbia, and subsequent shelling of Belgrade, did not necessarily *have* to lead to "a Russian mobilisation" as is being insinuated here. Had Russia really wanted a peaceful solution, they could have declared war on Austria-Hungary, with an ultimatum to cease hostilities within a reasonable time (say 48 hours), threatening mobilization if not followed (see the similar British and French reaction to Nazi Germany 20 years later, as the correct and acceptable course of action, in a similar situation of war). That would then have given sufficient time for Berlin/Vienna to "backpedal", avoiding the disaster of an escalation. The documentary however does not mention that French and Russian leaders had already colluded in St Petersburg (20th to 29th of July) and they also *knew* that escalating a diplomatic crisis in the Balkans (July Crisis) into a military one, would cause a knee-jerk reaction by Berlin. There was no way Berlin would ignore such a mobilization, especially a general mobilization of all Russian forces, and Paris/St Petersburg anticipated this. Even before the Austrian-Hungarian declaration of war, Russian and French leaders talked about how to win a "great" war, not how to avoid it. “There has never been a moral or legal requirement that a country wait to be attacked before it can address existential threats.” Condoleezza Rice, October 2002

    Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard6 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard Thank you for your regards Ralph. You refer to the hoped response and the supposed good excuse. That is what I am questioning, their concept that they had an opportunity given to them by the outrage in Sarajevo, it is extremely rare if ever that a government orders an assasination of a foreign royal, and obviously no government ordered the assasination of Ferdinand, only there were such elements in the machinery - no excuse for Austria!! I reiterate, the intention to go to war was as insane as sending Ferdinand to Sarajevo, it was even more risky! These are the pertinent issues. Why has there only been one Sarajevo and one 1914, because nobody else had the insane ideas - Ferdinand is said to have said before accepting the mission he would be shot, knowing the previous attacks in Sarajevo. Mounbatten assassinated, a very elderly man on holiday, daft of him, but nobody sent him to Northern Ireland, and nobody in power indeed would have thought it sane. We know the feelings involved in 1914, but it was bad judgment, and France and Russia jumped all over it. Regards to you, and don't miss Chamberlain explaining to Hitler that there should be no question this time what the UK would do - the controversy of 1914. And remember a French elite complained in 1919, the treaty is a twenty year truce! That again is a pertinent perspective, only concerning the second war, twenty years later as predicted. For more on Chamberlain see www.Butterflyinthewell.com

      ROBERT EWINGROBERT EWING5 сарын өмнө
    • @ROBERT EWING Yes, both Berlin and Vienna stood to gain from "a little regime change invasion over by Christmas". For A-H: increase in power (territory/taxes/etc.) to offset its relative decline in the early-20th Century. For Germany: unhindered and unblockable access to the Ottoman Empire with which an alliance was just about to be signed. The assassination was just too juicy an opportunity to ignore, seeing that after years of trying to "fabricate a believable excuse", it finally offered a good excuse which (it was hoped) nobody could possibly object to. I also wrote a new comment re. Balance of Power/The Alliances at the top of the video (select "latest comments first"-function) in case you're interested. Rgds

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard I would guess neither was easier, both more or less the same, answering both your questions. The Kaiser appears least concerned to exploit the assasination, but not sufficiently sane to visit Vienna and remain there, backing Austrian diplomacy and advising Austria against war - however insane the Austrian government was, who could possibly justify war when the visit to Sarajevo was error and an insane thing to do? Bullet-proof clothing did not justify the visit. And who can blame France and Russia for taking their chance when insane Franz Joseph appeared determined to finish Serbia by war in connection to his error? That is my opinion, that the historians neglect the pertinent issue, Austrian errors and the Kaiser going along with them - one teenager with one bullet destroyed both monarchies and reduced both countries, beat that for bad judgment, however much they felt pressured by three great neighbours!

      ROBERT EWINGROBERT EWING5 сарын өмнө
    • @ROBERT EWING Scale. Berlin and Vienna colluding had the intention of a "third Balkan war". Paris and St Petersburg colluding, then led to a "continental European war". Which would have been easier to limit, concerning impact? Which would have been easier to stop, with a negotiated settlement, once it broke out?

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard5 сарын өмнө
    • @PGee Franz Joseph did not even have another son, his heir sent to Sarajevo, and shot dead. How does the Austrian Government think war can solve that? Why should any further Austrian die relative to the error of sending Franz Ferdinand to Sarajevo? First and foremost, of the actions relative to Austria, Germany failed to attempt to restrain Austria. And how all those Central Powers errors occurred is more significant than everything else, however much France and Russia colluded. Sarajevo, encouragement and war, three extraordinary decisions, on the one hand, and on the other hand ordinary calculations to exploit the situation generated by the errors. First and foremost of all the errors, the mentality that led to Sarajevo and Serbia attacked - risky business that mentality, and it began before anyone else took any risk, and was the worst risk of Balkan history generally. Like various vehicles in a motorway smash up, there was likely one that invited the involvement of the others, and such was Austria. And therefore it would seem that Austrian obsession with Serbia is the truly relevant topic concerning the Europe of 1914, the spark to the war, yet historians said so many times the assasination was the spark, no, Austria was already off its rocker.

      ROBERT EWINGROBERT EWING5 сарын өмнө
  • Bullshit video - long live the Kaiser!

    Rudolf SchockRudolf Schock6 сарын өмнө
  • I hate this video

    MR RealityMR Reality6 сарын өмнө
  • Once an arsehole always an arsehole

    John GovusJohn Govus6 сарын өмнө
    • I'm going to guess you only watch like one minute of it

      MR RealityMR Reality6 сарын өмнө
  • Biased bullshit

    Just IceJust Ice6 сарын өмнө
    • @Savage Darksider Yes you are right. It was going to happen one way or another.

      bLOCKbOYgAMESbLOCKbOYgAMES21 өдрийн өмнө
    • @bLOCKbOYgAMES It was gonna to be WW1 no matter who sit on the Throne either it be Wilhelm II or Frederick III.

      Savage DarksiderSavage Darksider21 өдрийн өмнө
    • agreed

      bLOCKbOYgAMESbLOCKbOYgAMES4 сарын өмнө
  • Of all the M-A-I-N causes for WW1... cnx.org/contents/-bNFhaCp@4/Causes-of-WWI-The-Great-War ...three were basically a given factor, while only *one* could have been politically changed, if the desire to do so had existed by European leaders, to avoid the potential scenario of "a great (European) war". Militarism and imperialism were deep-seated traditional "values" (debatable) at the time, and along with the rather new appearance of nationalism, were deeply entrenched beliefs, shared by a large percentage of the populations of all European states. These were unchangeable factors, or would need considerable efforts on behalf of entire societies to change. The alliance system was however flexible. It could, and should have been changed. Furthermore, few of the the leaders wanted to accept the reality that colonialism/imperialism was an outdated model, that would need to deeply reform in a changing world, with the changing realities at the time.

    Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard6 сарын өмнө
    • It’s much simpler on the mind and the conscience just to blame Germany...this doc is trash. 🇺🇸

      Wild Mountain GwendyWild Mountain Gwendy2 сарын өмнө
  • This video seems to hate the Kaiser

    AllyRacingFan48AllyRacingFan486 сарын өмнө
  • I just want to restate a few points I have been making in recent comment threads: 1. Often times, the official reason why a country goes to war is not the real reason but more of an excuse. This was particularly true in 18th and 19th century Europe. A good example would be the War of Austrian Succession. Officially, the reason for the war was that other countries did not accept the legitimacy of Maria Theresa's claim to the Austrian throne. In reality, it was just an excuse for Prussia and other European powers to take land away from Austria. The war ended with Prussia and others taking land from Austria but agreeing to accept Maria Theresa as Austria's ruler, which they never really cared about in the first place. That's how things worked back then. 2. When I look at Europe at the beginning of the 20th century, I see much of the same thing going on. The assassination of the archduke was a more serious matter than the legitimacy of Maria Theresa, but even so, if the great powers of Europe were truly committed to peace, it could have been resolved diplomatically. 3. I believe that Germany and AH wanted to expand their eastern boundaries at the expense of Russia. By the standards of the time, this was not an altogether evil ambition. Russia's claim to these lands was no better than their's, and the people living there might have been better off under German rule than Russian rule. However, it was very unwise. What Wilhelm, Nicholas, and Franz Joseph did not understand is that eastern Europe was entering a completely new phase of history, the age of nation states. Going forward, national boundaries would not be determined by wars or royal marriage, but by the ethnicity of the people living in those lands. Regardless of who ruled eastern Europe in the early 20th century, the people living there would demand and eventually get their own countries. 4. In all fairness, I should point out that while the leaders in eastern Europe did not recognize the inevitability of nationalism in that region, the leaders of western Europe did not foresee the same thing happening in their overseas colonies. It was already happening in Ireland. 5. If there is one person who did understand all of this, it would be Otto Von Bismarck. When Prussia fought the three short wars to establish the German nation, he claimed relatively small areas of land with large populations of ethnic Germans. When Bismarck presided over the conference to divide up Africa, he claimed a relatively small area of land for Germany. Was this because he was a nice guy? No. It's because he knew that in the future, it would not be in Germany's interest to rule over lands filled with non-Germans. Unfortunately, Wilhelm II and other European leaders did not understand this.

    UnadinUnadin6 сарын өмнө
    • @Unadin To further elaborate, since I'm not sure I made myself clear, to my eye's at least. Western civilisation was promoted as being the paragon, the pinnacle of civilisation. The model that was to be aspired to. When the soldiers of the IEF arrived in Europe in 1914 and saw just what these "model" Europeans were doing to each other, the veil slipped somewhat, and many returned home somewhat disillusioned by what they had witnessed.

      BolivarBolivar6 сарын өмнө
    • @Unadin Indeed. It's effect on the Indian soldiers who served with the BEF on the Western Front in the early part of the war was great in that respect. One of my favourite quotes, when asked by a reporter “What do you think of Western civilization?”. Gandhi replied “I think it would be a good idea,”

      BolivarBolivar6 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar Agreed. Also, regarding the overseas colonies, I had a professor in college (a former military officer), who believed that WW1 had a big psychological effect on the third world soldiers who served in Europe. If you grew up in a colony such as India, you would have had this impression that white people were smarter and braver than others. Europeans made sure that they presented that image to their third world subjects. When soldiers came from other parts of the empires to fight in WW1, they saw ordinary white men who had been drafted into service. They would have seen these men bleed, die, and sometimes panic and cry. It was at that point that they began to realize that white people weren't all that special after all.

      UnadinUnadin6 сарын өмнө
    • @Unadin " By contrast, Wilhelm II and other leaders of the time were willing to gamble their countries' future over something that they would ultimately lose anyway." Further to this, I would suggest that Britain certainly, from it's experiences in Ireland and the [to be] dominions (I'm not sure about the other European nations), realised the way the wind was blowing with regards to colonies and nationalism, and were slowly making changes to adapt. The problem was the War provided the catalyst that kicked nationalism into high gear, greatly magnifying it's effects and speeding up it's progress by orders of magnitude, way beyond what anyone could have predicted. This basically left everyone playing catch-up to events and struggling to cope with the problem. Edit : For example, in 1914, Britain's declaration of war encompassed the Empire as well (Britain still having control over their foreign policy, though the extent of their participation, if at all, was entirely a matter for them to decide), but by 1919, these colonies/dominions are signing the Treaty separately, effectively as nations.

      BolivarBolivar6 сарын өмнө
    • @Unadin I agree with everything you said.

      Savage DarksiderSavage Darksider6 сарын өмнө
  • My opaque is of royal family, and the name is :Jan Christian will helm. My opa

    Johnny silvaJohnny silva6 сарын өмнө
  • www.change.org/p/council-of-the-european-union-allow-for-the-american-south-and-midwest-to-secede-from-the-union-of-the-united-states

    Wesley HeckendornWesley Heckendorn6 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar Yes, let's hope for the best. These issues have always existed, but only the surge of social media these last decade or so, has made it possible for so many people to exchange ideas, and influence outcomes, so rapidly. The next few days will be crucial, but I agree that it won't simply magically disappear. Guess it depends on whether one sees Trump as the one who caused a divide these last four years, or whether he simply exploited a divide which was already there. Anyway, he's gone. So it's up to the next administration, and there's a lot to heal.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard6 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard "Let's hope the US settles down under Biden." It may take a while. These things have a nasty habit of developing a momentum that takes time to dissipate.

      BolivarBolivar6 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar Let's hope the US settles down under Biden. Times of crisis makes for strange bedfellows, so these types have to be (unfortunately) taken seriously. It won't surprise me if a few of them took part in the recent "free tour" of the Capitol. A dangerous mix.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard6 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard I was going to suggest a spell checker, but didn't want to appear too pedantic :-)

      BolivarBolivar6 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar If you ask me, I honestly think this is a Chinese or Russian effort. A little bit of "anti EU" hatred, and rabble rousing in the US all thrown in one. They can't even spell :-)

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard6 сарын өмнө
  • A very pompous and silly man . The bells were already tolling for many royal families of Europe . He delighted in collecting various uniforms . George V was afraid to catch the contagion by refusing asylum to the tsar Nicolas II when he asked for it .As for WW1 , a bloody carnage resulting from outdated alliances leading to a domino effect .

    Richard ShigginsRichard Shiggins6 сарын өмнө
  • Adolf Hitler disliked him.

    WaleedWaleed6 сарын өмнө
  • He made a big mistake, he fired off Bismarck.

    AlienaAliena6 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar My knowledge of colonialism on Samoa isn't too deep, so I googled it. Yes, colonial rivalry meant that the great powers squabled over who should politically/military control an area in which private economic interests had previously already been set up, in this case plantations. I prefer to look at how much "weight" such interests had at the time, concerning the criteria strategic value, or the asset value of these interests on a global scale. IMO, it didn't seem to rank as high as, say Venezuela (1895, and again 1902/03). But then again, we get the issue "the bad taste in the mouth", which are just like today "lingering". Therefore any crisis would carry a certain "weight". In case you mean that the historically active colonial powers (like GB) and the players which saw the Pacific as closer to the own country (USA's position, re. Pacific) as Europe, then yes. Along with all the other major and minor crises, it would have left a lingering effect. I also see history as a bit more complex that a single straight line with dates on it. To me it's more like parallel tracks, on various levels. Each "track" carrying a different "weight" as far as issues are concerned. These "tracks" could be important, or simply run dead. Or they can diverge, or unite to form new "tracks". Again IMO, at the very top, and the highest "weight" is always geopolitics, which is why I'm surprised not more people are interested in it as a topic, rather than simply referencing it as side notes.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard6 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard My own knowledge of Anglo-American relations, pre WW1, is not great, but I'm tempted to suggest that it was colonial issues and Samoa that was the inception point for greater cooperation between the two.

      BolivarBolivar6 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar Yes, correct. Therefore I assume (without evidence) that it was the reason why London started "leaning West" across the Atlantic in search of new understandings (leading to a possible friendship accord/potential alliance, or similar) with Washington DC. If there should have ever been any sort of "Bismarckian" understanding between Berlin and St. Petersburg, the British Empire would become practically indefensible without a strong alliance partner. Should Berlin ever "lean East", London would "lean West" to counter it. The cogs of geopolitics turn slowly. Time is not measured in weeks or months, but rather measured in years, decades, or even dozens of years.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard6 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard Treaty of Björkö, 1905 ""The Americans are a very lucky people." Yes, they were the key to Mackinder's counterweight. Following the war, he revisited his Geographical Pivot and realised there existed a natural counter balance to it. Essentially predicting NATO in 1924.

      BolivarBolivar6 сарын өмнө
    • The "Wilhelm wanted to destroy the British Empire" is at best a self-fulfulling prophecy.... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy ...at worst a lie. Wilhelm had no such intentions. In fact, if he (or any German leader at the time during the late-19th Century) had *really wanted to do that,* they could have done that... Up to the late-19th/early-20th century, Russia was aggressively expansive, clashing with the British Empire. St Petersburg would have loved an alliance with common goals with Berlin, in order for them to achieve their geopolitical goals. German leaders refused. St Petersburg would have loved to crush the Ottoman Empire, and thereby clash with GB, and take the Dardanelles (free access to the Med). Also to eclipse British interests in the ME (Persia, etc.), see "The Great Game", or the Far East (clashing with Japan, still a British ally). *For that, a strong alliance with Berlin would have been a prerequisite.* Together, Russia and Germany could have "ruled the world", if only Berlin were willing to "sell off" Vienna, and crush the French in the west... Together, St Petersburg and Berlin sat on the "pivot" of the world, and nothing could have stopped them from dominating Europe and Asia. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History But, Berlin was not interested in the privillage of "eternal wars" which came as a price tag for "ruling the world". Neither under Bismarck, nor under Wilhelm II. Bismarck? I assume his attitude was to wait, until both Germany and Russia were strong enough, and a full alliance/accord would have given them the overpowering confidence to not care anymore what others wanted... "The Americans are a very lucky people. They're bordered to the north and south by weak neighbors, and to the east and west by fish." [Otto von Bismarck] Maybe Bismarck would have created "the fish" first... Also Bismarck: "The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia." Also Bismarck: "Do not expect that once taking advantage of Russia's weakness, you will receive dividends forever. Russian has always come for their money. And when they come - do not rely on an agreement signed by you, you are supposed to justify. They are not worth the paper it is written. Therefore, with the Russian is to play fair, or do not play." www.azquotes.com/author/1426-Otto_von_Bismarck

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard6 сарын өмнө
  • Without being toxic to each other, I want to generally have a debate with some people here. Everyone claims this is biased, by stating that Germany wanted to expand and for many other reasons claiming that 'England was good'. To set a few things clear, Wilhelm II according to nearly all Historians was someone who really believed in the expansion of Germany and Germany as a great power. This is most obvious when considering his relationship with Bismarck and how Bismarck dealt with foreign affairs (I am obviously not including the full detail but if you request it I can provide it). I personally don't see this documentary anywhere portraying England as good and the heroes. If it did then we all know it is wrong for there was no good side in WW1 as it was literally the war of the Empires. (Edit to add some info which I expect some people will want: Bismarck had created this complicated alliance system (you had the Dreikaiserbund, The Dual Alliance, The Reassurance Treaty and many more). The Importance of the Reassurance Treaty is that it kept Russia with Germany and prevented the rise of Franco-Russian relations. Wilhelm 2 unlike Bismarck had grown up in a united Germany and a powerhouse, so he didn't fear/respect Russia as Bismarck did. Thus when Bismarck was removed, he didn't renew the Reassurance Treaty which led to a loss of German-Russian relations).

    totitolistotitolis6 сарын өмнө
    • Britain was no ‘victim’.

      Wild Mountain GwendyWild Mountain Gwendy2 сарын өмнө
    • @Unadin MNthe can be very strange at times.

      BolivarBolivar6 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar I liked your comment on that other thread, but youtube keeps deleting my reply to it. I agree with what you said and I like that quote you cited.

      UnadinUnadin6 сарын өмнө
    • @totitolis No one alive understands the Balkans, which is why we need to make some clones of Tito.

      UnadinUnadin6 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar No problem, I still thank you greatly for your 1918 information! Before I leave you to it, obviously in every society/place events that may have happened 100 odd years ago may still have effects on why it happened. The Balkans is especially such a place so don't worry if some things you don't get, as literally, no one knows the full story of the Balkans (like literally no one). If you are just to focus on the Balkan Wars - WW1, just have in the back of your head that the Ottoman Empire begun around the 1300s, Greece was one of the first to break free (1821-1832), followed by nations such as Bulgaria in around 1879. There is still a lot of hate in the Balkans. Have a fantastic day and good luck with furthering your understanding of History!

      totitolistotitolis6 сарын өмнө
  • Lighten up grandson. He was no more guilty than that foolish old man running AUstria.(FRanz Josef) He was a product of his time and his stiff necked family. He was a Hohenzollern. What choice did he have?

    ziblot123ziblot1236 сарын өмнө
  • *If this doc were the "case" of the prosecution in a court, it would be thrown out in the first 3 minutes...* "There is advocacy, and then there is deception. Deceiving counsel should be called out, named, and shamed. Unfortunately, it is the very lawyers that are so adept at misleading the court that are the hardest to unmask. Judges should look out for the following red flags to know that something sinister is happening: 1)Only one party has filed material. 2)Important documents are intentionally omitted to mislead the court. That way counsel can try to avoid being sanctioned for expressly lying. 3)Counsel says that the other party “should have known” that a certain point would be argued based on the pleading or some other vague document. 4)Counsel blames opposing counsel for their failures instead of owning it. 5)Counsel pretends like something was sent, when it never was provided or was provided at a different time than alleged. Instead of letting the halo effect take over, I encourage judges to look critically at the counsel before them. Often times, counsel who appear to be shining knights can be the dirtiest of them all. These lawyers just leave no trace." www.slaw.ca/2016/11/16/legal-ethics-misleading-the-court/

    Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard6 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar I'm not wasting any more time with you. None of what you are whining about would have happened if GB, France and Russia had declared their neutrality. Nobody is saying they *had* to. Yes, by *not* declaring their intention to stay neutral, they signalled their intent *not* to stay out. A declaration of neutrality is an *inward action* and a safeguard to the own populations. Nobody has to wait for anybody else to declare it., or "start it first". It's a service to the own subjects, not a competition to "be the first", or "you must do it first, then I'll do it too", or "...but, but, but...why me?", etc. In is for the own benefit. Had GB, France and/or Russia declared their neutrality directly following the outbreak of hostilities in the Balkans, none of whatever you are going write in answer to this comment would have happened... We've covered everything. The rest is up to comprehension skills.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard6 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard "Where have I ever made an argument that any people anywhere "wanted war"?" I posted the articles to show that your claims of rampant revanchism were unfounded in fact. But, trust you to pick up on a particular sentence in one of those articles and to focus in on that in order to twist the intentions ... (The words aren't mine, I'm not accussing you of anything. I'm just showing your arguments for revanchism are a fabrication)

      BolivarBolivar6 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard "If you don't "leave the bar", don't complain about the bloody nose." Belgium "left the bar". Germany was waiting for her in the car park. :)

      BolivarBolivar6 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard "International law sets a clear rule" Convention, Year and Articles that cite this rule? I stated a declaration of neutrality was a choice (which it is). It is neither a requirement nor is it an obligation (under *_ANY_* international law). Country's may choose to declare neutrality for many reasons. They may be so far removed from a conflict, that it can have no possible effect on themselves or their interests, and thus can safely declare neutrality. It may be that a country simply wishes to take advantage of the "supposed" protections offered by neutrality, and in return are prepared to honour the obligations an duties that are attendant to the status of a neutral. Your mistake is to then use false logic to assume that any country that doesn't declare neutrality, is therefore displaying the intention to involve itself in the conflict. This is simply erroneous reasoning on your part. Edit : Forgot another reason ;-) Italy, declared neutrality to avoid participating in the Austro-Hungarian/German "war of aggression".

      BolivarBolivar6 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard "Where did I make the argument that "the French people as a whole" wanted war?" "A high price to pay for "revenge for 1871", and teaching kids to "hate the Boche"." - Ralph Bernhard, 2021 "Don't you know about the air of revenge in the general public "for the humiliation of 1871" and a widespread desire to "take back" Alsace-Lorraine? What is this that you're doubting? This is basic and often stated history." - Ralph Bernhard, 2021 You were wrong on *_EVERY_* count.

      BolivarBolivar6 сарын өмнө
  • Wilhelm, the stupidity in person! Poor Germany!

    Magno AvatarMagno Avatar6 сарын өмнө
  • 2:08 Is that Guiliani? LMAO

    루나루나6 сарын өмнө
    • I thought the same😂😂

      Guilherme SequeiraGuilherme Sequeira6 сарын өмнө
  • Willie was in the closet

    Andrew GardenerAndrew Gardener6 сарын өмнө
  • "Ralph" was here. He left all the comments. Enjoy.

    Neal TeitelbaumNeal Teitelbaum6 сарын өмнө
    • @Unadin Just to clarify, or at least add a little bit of information to your comment, which I agree with in the main. With regards to point 3, the option of (a) simply wasn't on the table for them. The army's plans for an attack on France always included the strike through Belgium to the French flank. How much the civilian leaders, Wilhelm, Bethmann etc, knew of this plan and whether they were aware of exactly it worked, is debated (it is argued that there was a serious disconnect between civilian leaders and their military's at the time). It is known that von Moltke had drafted the telegram to be sent to Belgium, demanding passage, on 26th July and that the capture of the rail junction in Liege was hard-coded into the mobilisation orders, to be completed by day 5.

      BolivarBolivar6 сарын өмнө
    • @Bolivar The Dutch declaration of neutrality had nothing to do with the Treaty of London. It concerned the "3rd Balkan War". I suggested that we switch to a new thread, in order to keep this one open, but apparently you are not reading anything, with the intention of *understanding it.* I posted your misconception concerning "Dutch neutrality" in the new comment. The one about *Deception.*

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard6 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard "Another signatory, the Netherlands...did nothing." Another Neutral country, who, in accordance with her Treaty, declared Neutrality in the conflict.

      BolivarBolivar6 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard "In every doc or book about pre-WW1" Then you only watch one kind of doc or read one kind of book. Expand your horizons a little :)

      BolivarBolivar6 сарын өмнө
    • @Unadin Yes, all agreed. Of course, my comments are about what others did wrong, and what they could also have done better. The entire affair reminds me of rich squabbling siblings already arguing about their "cut" of an inheritance, before "the old man" is even dead. WW1 was a long court case, in which they all lost, rather than making timely compromises. Since Neal is new here, I'll suggest that Bolivar and me go elsewhere, to leave this thread for you and Neal to discuss. Bolivar, I left a new comment at the top of the channel, concerning the objectivity of *trials,* vs. the obvious bias of *documentaries* such as these. In case you wish to continue, let's go there. Cheers all...

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard6 сарын өмнө
  • 42:23 Thats the Kaiser's son, the prince of Prussia. The Kaiser was fluent in english and wouldn't have made any grammar mistakes

    Johannes DenzerJohannes Denzer6 сарын өмнө
    • @Johannes Denzer Agreed. Clark says that one should read at least 25,000 books to have an idea of the complexities of the era leading up to WW1. I'm not even close :-), but my advice to history fans is the same as yours: to read as much from as many different angles, and build up an own "bs-barometer". When I see an opening like this in a documentary or a book, my "bs-barometer" is in the red, lol.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard6 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard I don't know why anyone would repeat their fault and go on to make a documentary about a highly controversial and complex figure like the Kaiser, and rely only on John Röhrl(you can tell that he's biased, but he doesn't "conjure up" evidence, thats a positive).Today "The Innocence of Kaiser Wilhelm" and Röhrl on the other side are extreme views on him, maybe both were right but Christopher Clark offers a more balanced view

      Johannes DenzerJohannes Denzer6 сарын өмнө
    • @Johannes Denzer No, but I think my brain works like that judge's advice :-)

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard6 сарын өмнө
    • @Ralph Bernhard Are you a lawyer?😅

      Johannes DenzerJohannes Denzer6 сарын өмнө
    • Yup. If this doc were the "case" of the prosecution in a court, it would be thrown out in the first 3 minutes.... "There is advocacy, and then there is deception. Deceiving counsel should be called out, named, and shamed. Unfortunately, it is the very lawyers that are so adept at misleading the court that are the hardest to unmask. Judges should look out for the following red flags to know that something sinister is happening: 1)Only one party has filed material. 2)Important documents are intentionally omitted to mislead the court. That way counsel can try to avoid being sanctioned for expressly lying. 3)Counsel says that the other party “should have known” that a certain point would be argued based on the pleading or some other vague document. 4)Counsel blames opposing counsel for their failures instead of owning it. 5)Counsel pretends like something was sent, when it never was provided or was provided at a different time than alleged. Instead of letting the halo effect take over, I encourage judges to look critically at the counsel before them. Often times, counsel who appear to be shining knights can be the dirtiest of them all. These lawyers just leave no trace." www.slaw.ca/2016/11/16/legal-ethics-misleading-the-court/

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard6 сарын өмнө
  • Seems like he had issues and insecurities because of his crippled arm

    jacqueline russelljacqueline russell6 сарын өмнө
  • Good documentary about me. (Guter Dokumentarfilm über mich.)

    Kaiser Wilhelm IIKaiser Wilhelm II6 сарын өмнө
    • Hey man, were you a good friend of Sultan Abulhamid II? I just wanna know

      Mujtaba MujeebMujtaba Mujeeb6 сарын өмнө
    • Sie sind eine FälschungIch!!! befehle dir, mir die Wahrheit zu sagen!!!

      Jack StevensJack Stevens6 сарын өмнө
    • Are you a "black" or a "grey". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_propaganda Just curious...

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard6 сарын өмнө
  • Ah, smell the propaganda....

    falloutbos34falloutbos346 сарын өмнө
  • Cermenik Şehzadeler savaşı....?

    Te o, TeomanTe o, Teoman6 сарын өмнө
  • Sieht irgendwie unserer grossen Vorsitzenden ähnlich. Der gelingt auch nichts Gescheites.

    U PU P6 сарын өмнө
  • You are watching a propaganda Hit piece, badly made one too...

    MacGruberMacGruber6 сарын өмнө
    • where can he find a good none propaganda video but in english

      viktor borisovviktor borisov6 сарын өмнө
  • A daughter ran off to America w/Gardiner?

    Heidi ScottHeidi Scott6 сарын өмнө
  • Interesting history but I think it is important to recognize the presenter's bias. It's not a clear cut case of Germany bad, England good.

    James UbermanJames Uberman6 сарын өмнө
  • UK declared war on Germany - not the other way around as the introduction makes believe.

    BenBen6 сарын өмнө
  • He was gay?

    Diandra JamesonDiandra Jameson7 сарын өмнө
  • If you really think about it this at it’s core a Family feud.

    PapabootycheeksPapabootycheeks7 сарын өмнө
    • A wise man once said that "those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." JFK, in 1962 Again, a different context (the micro level of societies, rather than the macro level of states/countries/empires) of course. So before 1914 there was one side which opposed a peaceful change of the alliance system (see M-A-I-N), and the other side therefore implemented the "violent revolution"... One side, jackbooting its way into destruction, with the other side uncompromising and "stiff-upper-lipping" its way into a "dislocated" state of ruin... End effect? They *all* lost.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard7 сарын өмнө
    • No, more like a struggle for domination, rule and spheres of influence. Elbowing, scheming, plotting, and then "blaming the other guy" if something goes wrong... “I am afraid, that a large part of the object of every country is to throw the blame for an impending failure upon some other country while willing, if possible, to win the Nobel Peace Prize for itself.” Winston Churchill, 1932

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard7 сарын өмнө
  • My husband who is Australian and had a speech impediment can kind of relate to him. My husband spend 20yrs in the Army and had uncle's killed in the 1st and second WWars. Our son in law is German who we love darely and we have 2 Grandchildren, half German and Australian. My husband understands his frustration BUT my husband did not kill people for it. Maybe punched a few people.

    Laura FLaura F7 сарын өмнө
  • He should have been friends a war criminal

    WorldOrtho Orthopaedic Surgery Sports MedicineWorldOrtho Orthopaedic Surgery Sports Medicine7 сарын өмнө
  • Reported by: a British history is written by...

    Makuta S-VMakuta S-V7 сарын өмнө
    • @Unadin & Alan First off. A Happy New Year to everybody here. Yes, agreed on the "history written by winners" point. The true meaning of the saying (which anybody can google) will be lost, if it is overused incorrectly. As Alan remarked, mostly for the wrong reasons. Today, we have freedom of speech, and anybody can "write" whichever "history" they please. The saying has lost its value, which is basically to guard against authoritarian states, which really *do* literally "write history". Just like today the term "Communists" is an overused talking point by populists, which at some point will lose it's meaning if constantly used incorrectly. You can even see it pop up on this video every now and then. There are actually very few "communists" out there in our societies, which actually fit the true definition of "a communist". In the past, other terms have also lost their true origins, because of being overused incorrectly.

      Ralph BernhardRalph Bernhard6 сарын өмнө
    • @Makuta S-V I agree with History Room that the phrase "history is written by the winners" has become overused. There were times in the past where the winners of a conflict would completely destroy the losers' culture and erase whatever history they had. Things have changed. Countries that lose wars continue to exist and their people continue to hold a biased view of past conflicts. In Japan, many people believe that WW2 started because the Japanese were trying to free their neighbors from European oppression. Sometimes the loser's bias can affect the winner's view as well. I went to HS in the northeast back in the 80s. I clearly remember our history textbook presenting the view that slavery was just one of several reasons for the Civil War. To this day, there are a large number of Americans, north and south, who continue to think that it was about states' rights or tariffs. There are many popular misconceptions about the Civil War and the antebellum south. Many people think that slavery was on its way out, that southerners were paying higher federal taxes than northerners, and that the Confederate army did not resort to conscription. Everyone seems to be aware of the fact that most southerners did not own slaves, but few of them realize the extent to which wealthy slaveowners controlled the process by which states decided to secede. Victors do not have a monopoly on historical bias.

      UnadinUnadin7 сарын өмнө
    • @Makuta S-V Then please present your own argument in defence of your position.

      The History RoomThe History Room7 сарын өмнө
    • @The History Room I wholeheartedly disagree

      Makuta S-VMakuta S-V7 сарын өмнө
    • In my experience, when people suggest that 'History is written by the winners' it is usually because they don't like the history they are offered and wish an alternative were available more to their taste. Some of the best histories of the Great War have been written from the German perspective, particularly the soldiers (think of All Quiet on the Western Front and Storm of Steel, to name only two) and Tolstoy's account of the Crimean War, in which he served, is riveting from the 'loser's' point of view. So I wish you well in finding a history that ticks more of your boxes, but as Mr Bernhard suggests in this thread, why not have a go yourself?

      The History RoomThe History Room7 сарын өмнө
  • So France Russian and England conspiring against Germany prior to the war. All 3 were supper powers at that time. Do you want? A hopeless situation.

    Aaden awesomeAaden awesome7 сарын өмнө
    • @Angie Aligo Russia had no alliance with Serbia.

      PGeePGee5 сарын өмнө
    • @Angie Aligo Some sort of conflict in Europe was inevitable at that time. If the war hadn't started with the assassination of the archduke, it would have started for some other reason within the next few years. For about 250 years, the great powers of Europe had fought many wars with each other. However, with the exception of the Napoleonic Wars, these were limited wars, and the casualties came nowhere near that of WW1. When WW1 started, the participants thought that it would be another limited war. The question is not so much how the war started and who is to blame for starting it. The question is why it became such a colossal bloodbath.

      UnadinUnadin6 сарын өмнө
    • i dont blamed germany or france,england and even russia,this conflict was only between austria and serbia,but this big nations because of the alliances must support thier allies,if only serbia and austria solved it in diplomatic way. Imagined if no ww1 hitler remain a painter and ordinary man and no holocaust,no communist most of all no ww2.

      Angie AligoAngie Aligo6 сарын өмнө
    • @An Anomalocaris I don't completely agree with you about Russia: 1. Although the Russians fought poorly against the Germans, they were more than a match for the other central powers. Russia could have defeated AH, Turkey, and Bulgaria on its own. 2. The war started at a time when Russia was in a vulnerable phase, like an invertebrate shedding its exoskeleton in order to grow. Russia was a late comer to the industrial revolution, but at the beginning of the 20th century, its economy was growing by leaps and bounds. It was attracting many immigrants from other European countries. The problem was that industrialization had a very disruptive effect on its society, making it vulnerable to radical ideologies. 3. Just a small note about Aaden's comment and yours. The powers of Europe at that time are called "great powers", not "superpowers". Britain and Germany were the most powerful, but no country was powerful enough to take on the rest of them combined. The term "superpower" is used to describe the balance of power after WW2, with the USA and USSR being the world's two superpowers.

      UnadinUnadin7 сарын өмнө
    • To be fair, by 1914, Russia was only masquerading as a superpower. After being humiliated in the world stage after its defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, the many faults in Russia became apparent. Tsar Nicholas II did not know how to govern a country well, thanks to his father Alexander III who chose to not teach him how to Govern a nation until Nicholas was 30, then died when he was just 26. The Russian Military was still using weaponry from the 1870’s, and many troops suffered extreme lack of morale.

      An AnomalocarisAn Anomalocaris7 сарын өмнө