Politics and the First World War - Professor Sir Richard Evans

Economy | Information | History | Online | Facts | World | Global | Money

1. In a cablegram sent from Europe on May 29, 1914, President Wilson's chief adviser Colonel House predicted the war. He said, "Whenever England consents, France and Russia will close in on Germany and Austria." That is what happened. Russia arranged the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand, which was done by a Serbian terrorist organization, and in the subsequent crisis France and Russia mobilized their forces knowing this would trigger Germany's defensive plan. To cover up the conspiracy, another assassination occurred in Paris. All this is documented in my book "Twelve American Wars."
2. Too simplistic... just a repetition of popular books with a notable lack of understanding of actual details..
3. 12:04 the left map is innacurate, between France and Germany and between Austria and Italy
4. What a rather questionable professor, the British tend to justify their actions and set all the standards in history form their view points. Calling German advances in Africa genocidle but simply slipping over the British concentration camps is a bit weird I think. I honestly hate the lack of neutrality and overwhelming amount on nostalgic nationality of many British historians. It sickens me, that politics and personal viewpoints really seem to interfere with a subject of neutrality and whole new methods of points of view and moral standards. This is rubbish, historically inaccurate and more outdated and backwards than the utopian dream world of the British who still seem to live in the past and forget the fact, that their empire is unexistent and their attitude condescending as well as arrogant. Making a compromise, a balance in history should be the goal, sticking to the information and sources should be the goal not to evaluate. Anyone who want s to immediately evaluate and show one sided information should go into the less then qualified filed of political science, which by this point is as left and reactionary as vague social sciences can be, and they can be so a lot.
5. British lecturers are much better than American one's. Can't put my finger on it. More straight forward delivery I think.
6. He speaks with no conviction when talking about the Zimmerman telegram.
7. he should of had some water with him
8. I would challenge the notion and description of the political system of 1914 as been bi-polar. This is misleading. It was in fact a balance of power, a concept that Europe had been working with for centuries, and the driving principle behind Britain's foreign policy and the keystone of Britain's world hegemony.
   
   In 1908 Germany was happy with the balance. In 1914 Germany felt threatened by what she perceived as a changing balance of power against her. In 1914 Germany was predicting that by 1917 Russia's military capacity and investment would mature and Russia would become a direct threat to German interests.
   
   Germany's answer was to have a preventative war against Russia. To do that the balance of power alliances system meant she would have to also fight France and Britain. The balance of power meant that she didn't have the resources to fight both. It should have stopped there and Germany should have pursued diplomatic means to have a counter balance to Russia. It was possible. It was in Britain's interest to maintain the balance of power in Europe and despite Germany's foolish antagonism common ground was possible.
   
   In 1914 Germany knew that the military situation was a Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) scenario but they foolishly and hype-optimistically decided they had the best trained, best prepared, the best best best of everything military and they could smash France in 6 weeks and then turn and defeat Russia at their leisure.
   
   A great Plan - not!
   
   No plan B here, no alternative, bust or bust through, do or die. Of course it took Von Moltke 8 weeks to realise what he had done - and became a gibbering mess. He might have been a dumb ar*e but he knew when he had screwed up and when he was beat. The others took 4 years and millions of lives and treasure to realise. And then they blamed everyone other than themselves.
   
   Germany's leadership in 1914 put everything into the military basket and then gambled.
   
   And then did it again 25 years later.
   
   That is the main cause but there is still plenty of blame and responsibility to go around throughout Europe. The politicians didn't just loss control of the military they also lost control of the diplomats and indeed the decision making process. It was a muddle of vague responsibilities and reporting at all levels in all governments.
   
   I agree to not making direct comparisons between 1914 and China now. China has had more experience of successfully running empires and foreign policy than any other country on Earth.
   
   Having said that the other begging comparison is with Russia. Russia feels like Germany did in 1914, she feels surrounded, hard done by and encroached upon - and she is a 'loose canon' lead by an over-confident 'loose canon' more interested and swayed by military power and old empires than the economics and the people.
9. A nation that fought two world wars is not superior?
10. I must say that the maps used in this English lecture are unbelievably amateurish,as if someone just drew the maps from memory,rather than use existing maps that are extremely accurate in the borders of the period in question!
11. A fine lecture, which points out the scenery, but seldom dawdles to take it in. Lovely work, directed with barely suppressed passion for topic.
12. I believe that World War II was a direct result of The 1918 Armistice Treaty of Versailles, France. This was much of Hitler's rise to power in the Nazi party.
13. Germany was the superior nation in 1914 - and Britain amd France and Russia was only number two! So - Germany was encircled and the disaster was only a question of time!
14. I"ve found in my travels that duelling is still a preferred manner of upholding honor between nations. My personal favorite has always been shotguns at three paces. So...how mad are ya? :)
15. I liked it until the end. His failure to mention the Balfour Declaration is pathetic.