Politics and the First World War - Professor Sir Richard Evans

The First World War put unprecedented strains on the economic, social and political systems of all the combatant nations. A year after the war ended, the Great European Empires had collapsed, and new, extremist ideologies, from fascism to communism, had emerged to disturb the postwar political world.
This lecture explores the reasons for the radical political changes that made the First World War the seminal catastrophe of twentieth-century Europe.

[CM-bioy]

Great lecture. I read somewhere once that the sacrifices that people in the combatant countries were called to make made it nearly impossible to negotiate a peace. The government that accepted anything less than a clear victory would not long survive the popular backlash.

[CM-bioy]

I wish the lecture had delved a little deeper into the pressures that led the US to enter the war. Almost implied that Wilson was inclined to join the Entante Powers earlier except the notion of fighting along side autocratic Russia was unpalatable. What about the loans made by US banks to France and the UK? Was there any concern that these might not be repaid in the event of a Central Powers victory?

[WildBillCox]

A fine lecture, which points out the scenery, but seldom dawdles to take it in. Lovely work, directed with barely suppressed passion for topic.

[jacques]

12:04 the left map is innacurate, between France and Germany and between Austria and Italy

[Gundus]

The map of Austria-Hungary (min. 12) is wrong. The border between Italy and Austria was at the north end of Lake Garda. For centuries. Even the german speaking part of Southtyrol is missing on this map, which was the big prize for Italy, presented by Britain, to betray their allies and join war against Austria. This mistaken map is some kind of poor, because easy avoidable.

[itscentered]

British lecturers are much better than American one's. Can't put my finger on it. More straight forward delivery I think.

[triumphbobberbiker]

The map of post-war Europe shown by the professor at 12:46 isn't accurate. The whole peninsula of Istria was annexed to Italy after the war. In the map, it is shown as being part of Jugoslavia.

[ThePinkus]

16:20 "Why did the Japanese defeated the Russians, why did they had a naval victory?"
My answer would have been "'Cause the Kamchatka was on the other side!?"

[valdasendriulaitis]

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!

[woff]

22:51, Hmm, the Germans fight genocidal wars, but the Brits inventing the Concentration Camp and carrying out genocide against Boers and Blacks is not mentioned in the same terms?

[educatedmanholecoverbyrich]

WHOOPS! Looking at the map of Warsaw Pact countries, it shows Ireland as a part of Russia???!!!

[cliffcampbell]

43:43 "this led to Woodrow Wilson to declare war against Germany." Woodrow Wilson, or any U.S. president for that matter, couldn't/can't make a declaration of war, only Congress can do that. The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces, but cannot declare war.

[woff]

41:11. "French, British and Colonial forces conquered Namibia (?). No, it was German SWA and ONLY SA troops took it.

[BudFieldsPPTS]

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? :)

[woff]

53:37. Hmm, Czechoslovakia was a funny "democracy". Votes were weighted according to your ethnicity! So it was an Apartheid state. Hungary had an elected government, but British wartime propaganda STILL influences a top historian like this. Isn't that sooo depressing!?

[graemesydney]

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.

[epksluz]

Good books to unterstand German History
1. Europe - Struggle for supremacy by
Brendan Simms
2. „Diplomacy“ by Henry Kissinger

[pisuoxide]

Is this the famous Hollywood celebrity Rich Evans?

[danehart]

German empire not taking over Austrian empire at some point like in 1880 was a massive error .as was the loss of Germans peoples to US . free a few of the nations in Austrian part . Polish Romanian and Serbian bits, and Hungry if they liked .may have stopped ww1

[Frank-mmyp]

Napoleon Bonaparte:" If you say you are going to take Vienna-take Vienna".
FlashForward:
WWII:
US Military leaders :We have the Nazis on the run. We can and should drive on straight into Berlin!
US Civilian leaders: Nope, sorry. We gave Berlin to the Soviets.The war will soon be over, anyway.
What could possibly go wrong?
Vietnam War:
Military: This war is unwinnable under current restrictions. Let's "declare victory" and bring our boys home.
Civilian: Nope, we are committed. The "honor" of the USA is at stake, Cold War, you know. Send in some more of our boys. What could possibly go wrong ?
Gulf War I:
Military: We have driven all of the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Let's drive into Baghdad and get rid of "Little Hitler"Saddam once and for all.
Civilian: Nope. We got a GREAT VICTORY. Saddam is defeated and isolated. I don't need another war and a bigger body count before the next election. Besides, what could possibly go wrong?
WHY DOES HISTORY KEEP REPEATING ITSELF?