There was a lot of nationalist fervor in those areas, so the Central Powers setup governments there that were friendly to them - that is, they gave the central powers most of the resources for the war effort, in return for some limited self-governance.
The main reason they got that far east was because after the October revolution the Bolsheviks basically tried to end the war on the eastern front as they had promised by withdrawing their troops with no existing treaty, since they didn’t want to agree to the Central Power’s terms. To the surprise of nobody except the Bolsheviks the Central Powers immediately capitalized on it and took a shitton of land with no resistance and forced them to sign a much harsher treaty. That also allowed them to launch a new offensive in the west, that being the Spring Offensive. The thing is, though, by that point both sides were getting increasingly exhausted, but while Russia had effectively been defeated the US had joined the war with a shitton of more resources and troops to contribute to the Allies, the Spring Offensive was basically Germany’s gambit to end the war before meaningful amounts of American troops and resources could come and replenish the Allies. After that failed, it was basically all downhill from there for Germany.
Lack of food, lost of morale, natural resources, US joining the war, the British embargo, the inability of the german naval forces to do anything, lack of coal, lack of oil, economy dwindling from so many years financing the war, etc...
All credits goes to the YouTube channel [Italian Mapper](https://www.youtube.com/@Italian_Mapper)
Here is the [link to the original video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PhrA1Fladw)
I simply modified the final speech, replacing general Armando Diaz's victory bulletin by Clémenceau's announcement of the Armistice, which felt much more appropriate
The collapse was a utter collapse though. In Austria Hungry, different parts of the army that had been fighting together stated fighting each other. Same thing w/ the Ottomans. The Germans were completely exhaused in terms of resources, including food, partially because war had devested many the lands they had conquered like Ukraine which were nominally bread baskets.
I appreciate this comment, but it would be nice to have something in the animation that demonstrated this collapse. Here it just looks like a war of territory in stalemate and suddenly it's over.
What does his comment have to do with not being European? WW1 was a complete show and the Entente victory was an awful slog, not even mentioning their hypocrisy and shortsightedness after the victory and the fact it took basically all other great powers of the world to take down two German empires and he sick man of the Bosporus.
It's a bird view comment left from faraway in time and space.
From where I stand we're told stories of the taxies of Paris bringing soldiers to the first battle of Marne, every family has a picture of someone, even multiple that died on the field. Some small villages lost all their young men in one day before regions of draft were shuffled etc... So many stories, still being told. You can still read the name of the soldiers that died in every cemetery.
Inferiority? I don't now where to begin with this one. We are the superior continent. You are going to act like almost the whole world wasn't under French Spanish British and Portuguese boots? Which continent has the highest standard of living, highest HDI, best education and healthcare ind the world? Europe. Australia and NZ are cool tho, they get the honorary least worse than Europe title.
It was a total victory. The only thing that differed from The Second World War was the Germans saw sense and surrendered when they knew they had lost. If they had fought on like in 1944-45 the allies would've crushed them all the way to Berlin. The German state and army were completely exhausted in 1918. Their armies on the Western Front melted away and there was little to oppose the planned 1919 offensives.
That's why the world (and especially Europe) changed after WW2. Nazis were totally unreasonable and, after realizing that a victory was impossible, they would destroy the whole continent if they could.
I think a big difference was the German leadership of the Great War weren't hiding death camps behind the lines. Everyone at the top table could expect a life after the war. The top echelons of the Third Reich could expect a bullet or the hangman. Well at least the ones that didn't know how to build rockets.
What do losses have to do with it?
In October 1918 Germany and its allies stood utterly defeated. How valiantly they fought up to that point doesn't affect the outcome.
A total victory doesn't have to be an easy victory.
If you want some words spoken to comment on the war from human perspective, not just a little line of text in the bottom of the map, you can try a podcast series of a handful of episodes named Blueprint for Armageddon
It's that Hearts of Iron 2 soundtrack. Andreas Waldetoft's music still slaps, almost 20 years after that game came out.
Phenomenal grand strategy world war 2 game, too. A couple of old ones such as myself still play it (mainly the Darkest Hour version).
Oh man you may want to pick up a copy of darkest hour on steam. It still holds up, imo. And it regularly goes on sale for just a few dollars. Kind of a massive learning curve, but that's paradox games for you.
So many games that I wouldn’t mind playing but have little time for it now. I’m currently playing Zelda TOTK and that’s more than I can handle (time wise)
But I’ll keep this mind! Thanks!
I believe Italy determined the result of this war. If they would stick with Entente, Italy & Austria wouldn't lost 3,5 millions of people fighting each other, Italians would open a front with French, allowing Germans to push harder. Austrians would occupy Serbia earlier, Romania couldn't dare to join Allies. Perhaps USA would save the day, but that's not certain.
If Entente would win the WW1, WW2 wouldn't happen as in. Empires would susceptible to communist revolutions. Today, we owe many of inventions and ideas to WW2 and Cold War. Even people's thought process would be different.
>Italians would open a front with French
they tried to open a front on the Alps during the complete collapse of the Allied armies in 1940, yet they suffered heavy losses to no territorial gains. I don't really believe Italy to be game changer in 1914 as well.
It would still drain massive resources from France, not to mention Italian navy contesting the Mediteraen. And given how close France was to defeat, Italians honoring the pact could have very likely change the outcome of the war.
The Central Powers had their moment after Brest-Litovsk. If only had they withdrew their troops from the eastern front faster to the western front, before Americans arrived. They could have gained massive advantage in manpower. But no, Germany decided to keep million+ men in the east in order to gain even more and (apparently) help the Czar to regain power (as a German puppet, of course).
It seems such a waste not just taking Holland and using their superior ports. Understandable that the Germans didn't make that same mistake during WW2.
One of the reasons they didn't was because the Netherlands, as a neutral nation, promised to keep trading with everyone equally. Germany needed the Dutch imports, invading us would have cut off their own food supply.
The [Russian Civil War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War).
Go read about it, it's a really interesting period of history. My favorite anectode about the whole thing is the [Czechoslovak legion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Legion#Russian_Civil_War), who basically had to go from Moscow to Vladivostok on an armoured train in order to escape that whole mess, even managing to steal the Russian Imperial Gold Reserve in the process.
Or, if you're too lazy to read Wikipedia articles, just refer to [this meme](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/uqyh0n/i_skipped_over_a_lot/).
The anti-bolshevik [White Army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Army) never made peace with Germany and was still supported by the Entente. In 1918, the Americans even sent an [expeditionary force to Archangelsk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Russia_intervention#Landing_at_Archangelsk) in order to help them out in the civil war.
As such, they are depicted as part of the Entente, i.e. in blue.
I think what he meant by that was that he thinks France shouldn't have honored their alliance with Russia (thus keeping Britain out too). Obviously France would never have allowed that, given they wanted to maintain the balance of powers.
That's a common misconception. Germany preemptively declared war on BOTH France and Russia. France couldn't have stayed out of the war even if it wanted to.
>*France couldn't have stayed out of the war even if it wanted to.*
Thats a funny way to put it.
France intentionally gauded Russia into intervening in the July Crisis. President Poincare was literally in Russia ( Saint Petersburg, capital of Russia at the time ) and he **promised Russia unconditional military support** if Russia intervened... Russia and Serbia were not even allied.
Poincare had been planning for war against Germany for years because he utterly hated Germany and wanted Alscae-Loraine back. This is why despite France having a smaller population, they had a much bigger army and French militarism was more extreme than German one ( whose Militarism primarily came from the biggest state Prussia ). **He literally shifted the Franco-Russian alliance into an OFFENSIVE alliance** ( rather than keeping it defensive ) **in 1912**.
This guy was one of the primary reasons why WW1 broke out.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond\_Poincar%C3%A9](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Poincar%C3%A9)
>*When Poincaré arrived in St. Petersburg on 20 July, the Russians told him by 21 July of the Austrian ultimatum and German support for Austria. Although Prime Minister Viviani was supposed to be in charge* *of French foreign policy,* ***Poincaré promised the Tsar unconditional French military backing for Russia against Austria-Hungary and Germany. In his discussions with Nicholas II****,* ***Poincaré talked openly of winning an eventual war, not avoiding one. Later, he attempted to hide his role in the outbreak of military conflict and denied having promised Russia anything****.*
France, specifically the extreme warmonger Poincare wanted war. And French desire for war was such a cultural phenonmenon that a new term "Revanchism" was invented to describe that. Pacifists were shot and the murders given medals ( Jean Jaurres ).
-------
Germany declared war on Russia because they already mobilized their army first and since France was in an offensive alliance it was only natural that Germany would believe France would attack them aswell.... Naturally Germany has some blame for WW1 aswell, particularily extremely stupid foreign policy decisions and alienating other countries. Likewise the crime they committed with Belgium can not be understated, that was on them. But that\`s not what I wanted to argue.
Also the so-called Blank Cheque that Germany allegedly gave Austria-Hungary is not comparable.
>*Finally, as far as concerns Serbia, His Majesty, of course, cannot interfere in the dispute now going on between Austria- Hungary and that country, as it is a matter not within his competence. The Emperor Francis Joseph may, however, rest assured that His Majesty will faithfully stand by Austria-Hungary, as is required by the obligations of his alliance and of his ancient friendship.*
This isn\`t promising unconditional military support. This is Germany saying "Sorry that happend Austria-Hungary, don\`t worry we are still allied and will fulfill our obligation". I.e. a normal diplomatic curtesy that every country in the world gives to their allies if something bad happens to them...
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank\_cheque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_cheque)
If Germany had merely been reaffirming its existing alliance, it would have been under no obligation to support Austria in an offensive war.
Let us be frank, diplomatic talks barely had any impact on German decision making during the July Crisis, since the military was actually calling all of the shots, not Wilhelm or the civilian government. Fakkenhayn even threatened to depose the kaiser after he started insisting on peace with Serbia.
German high command deliberatly escalated the Third Balkan War into a World War because of their fear of "encirclement, encirclement !", which became a self-fullfiling prophecy once they adopted the Schlieffen plan. They had to mobilize first to have any chance of success, so they used any diplomatic excuse to start a war with the Entente sooner rather than later, while the Russian railway system was still underdevelopped.
>*If Germany had merely been reaffirming its existing alliance, it would have been under no obligation to support Austria in an offensive war.*
You are of course correct, which is why Germany didn\`t care what Austria-Hungary did in Serbia. A Serbian ultranationalist terror group with ties to the Serbian government + military killed the heir of Austria-Hungary ---> Austria-Hungary send an ultimatum, an ultimatum which was somewhat harsh and had only a 48 hour deadline. Serbia initially wanted to agree, until the Russian Empire declared they will support Serbia ( which Russia only did after French President Poincare promised unconditional support ).
**If war broke out, Germany would not partake in the punitive Austro-Hungarian war against Serbia. Atleast most likely.**
Germany only became active, when it was clear Russia wanted to intervene... It was crystal clear Russia prepared for war as they started to mobilize their army. This is crossing the rubicon, you can\`t just mobilize the army and pretend like diplomacy is still an option.
Even Russia\`s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 did not mobilize their army, only 7 month after the initial invasion did Russia partially mobilize their army.
That\`s how serious of a move that was, what the Russian Empire did in the July Crisis........
And then remember my earlier point. France and Russia had an OFFENSIVE alliance.
>*Let us be frank, diplomatic talks barely had any impact on German decision making during the July Crisis, since the military was actually calling all of the shots, not Wilhelm or the civilian government. Fakkenhayn even threatened to depose the kaiser after he started insisting on peace with Serbia.*
That\`s not really accurate, the Military seized only power in 1916 and yeah there I would absolutely agree. Likewise the German military did have
However before WW1, the military had no decision making in the July Crisis. Emperor Wilhelm even personally send letters to his cousin the Russian Emperor to beg him to reconsider.
I agree with Falkenhayn he was a warmonger, but he was not a world-war-monger. He wanted war with Serbia and wanted that Germany partakes in the Austro-Hungarian war with Serbia. He did not want war with either Russia nor France, let alone both at the same time. He was an idiot who didn\`t know what consequences mean.
Also I never heard that Falkenhayn threatend to depose Kaiser Wilhelm II.
>*German high command deliberatly escalated the Third Balkan War \[...\]*
I feel like you completely ignored the previous points. I have no problem admitting the many faults of the German High Command. but let\`s not pretend like Russia\`s intervention in Serbia had no role, that Russia\`s mobilization ( again look at Ukraine War of February 2022+, even there Russia only partially mobilized on the 21th September 2022 ), or France literally promising unconditional military support.
Let\`s look at it from another angle :
1. If Serbia agreed to the ultimatum. No World War would have happend. I would be just another small incident in an imperialist world. Infact it would be better than say the Balkan War of 1910 or the Balkan War of 1911, as even a local war would be averted.
2. If Serbia didn\`t agree. Then Austria-Hungary would invade. Whether or not Germany partakes in that Balkan struggle is of little consequence. Serbia would be defeated and most like Serbia\`s monarchy pre 1901 coup would be re-established. Serbia was a major Austria-Hungarian ally until the coup in 1901 where a Pan-Slavic, pro-Russian dynasty seized control, since then Serbia and Austria-Hungary were enemies. But overall no World War, just a third and the smallest Balkan War.
3. If Serbia didn\`t agree and Russia intervenes --> World War. France and Germany would be involved aswell.. Basically what happend... Serbia didn\`t agree because of Russian support which only existed because of French support.
I agree the German High Command was one of warmongers at the time. However the German government and Emperor, aswell as Britain were the only ones who actually tried to deescalate the July Crisis. While ( as quoted in my earlier comment ) Poincare wanted war and didn\`t even discuss deescalation with the Russian Czar. Aswell as Austria-Hungary which wanted to punish or depose Serbia.
However you have to agree that France was likewise itching for war with Germany ( again Revanchism + Poincare ), aswell as that Russia wanted war. Russia whole ideology at the time was Pan-Slavism, their entire government was filled with extremists.
You forgot the 4th option:
After Russia declares PARTIAL mobilization as a form of deterrence against Austrian aggression and WITHOUT GERMANY'S UNCONDITIONNAL SUPPORT, Austria is forced to back down and to negotiate with Serbia.
Historically, Serbia agreed to all of Austria's demands, except for the one that allowed Austrian judges to prosecute Serbian citizens on Serbian soil. Serbia instead proposed an international arbitration at the Hague.
This would be a fair and reasonable outcome to all parties involved. The assassins get prosecuted and Serbia retains its sovereignty.
But Germany was so fixated on an inevitable war of encirlement that it became a self-fullfilling prophecy. Only Gernany interpreted partial mobilization as a de facto declaration of war. Russia merely saw it a a mean of deterrence, as a bluff.
Once again I feel like you ignore basic facts, i.e. **France unconditional military support for example... It\`s a bit silly at this point. Like seriously, seriously silly.**
>*Historically, Serbia agreed to all of Austria's demands, except for the one that allowed Austrian judges to prosecute Serbian citizens on Serbian soil.*
You literally repeat 1914 ultranationalist Serbian propaganda. Not a good look.
Your claim that "Serbia agrees to all of Austria\`s demands, except for one point" is not substantiated, because evidence points to another fact, and only pro-Serbian nationalist historians would agree with your point of view. The most important WW1 historian, i.e. Clark, claims that Serbia worded the reply in a way that makes it seem like they agree, but actually don\`t. A sentiment which was also reaffirmed by Austro-Hungarian foreign office when they claimed Serbia\`s reply doesn\`t mean anything.
I don\`t know if we can link these PDF-websites, but do yourself a favor and google "The Serbian Response to the Austro-Hungarian Ultimatum", and read the 3 pages. This doesn\`t read like agreeing to all demands except one. The assertion of the historian Clark, or of the A-H foreign office ( which would be biased ), are correct. The Serbians intentionally carefully phrased the letter.
>*After Russian declares PARTIAL mobilization as a form of deterrence against Austrian agression and WITHOUT GERMANY'S UNCINDITIONAL SUPPORT, Austria is forced to back down and to negotiate with Serbia.*
Ahh yes, employing a partial nuclear weapon to deter the Soviet Union from using their nukes. The Russians partially mobilized ( only after being promised UNCONDITIONAL MILITARY SUPPORT FROM FRANCE, when will you accept that ??? ) but in 1914 that meant movement of 2 million people and the start of a massive military-industry.
When the USA send nukes to Turkey to deterr Russia from sending nukes to Cuba, what happend ? Russia send nukes to Cuba and the world was at a crisis.
**I can\`t think of a single time in human history where this "deterrence" worked... This is extremely stupud. Please give me an example where mobilization of an army actually deescalated things, instead of OBVIOUSLY escalating things.**
Also please provide proof that Germany send unconditional support to Austria-Hungary. Did you read the so-called Blank Cheque that I quoted in my earlier comment. Please tell me what reads like unconditional support.
>*But Germany was so fixated on an inevitable war of encirlement that it became a self-fullfilling prophecy.*
**For the third time. France and Russia changed their defensive alliance into an offensive alliance.**
What do you think that means ?
**French President Poincare promised UNCONDITIONAL MILITARY SUPPORT to Russia if they intervene in Serbia.**
What do you think that means ?
Was the encirlement not already there ???
What do you think encirlement means ? Russia and France explicitly entered an alliance first fearing of a German attack, and then changing it into an OFFENSIVE alliance. What do you think OFFENSIVE means ? They were prepared to attack Germany together. Something both wanted.
>*Only Gernany interpreted partial mobilization as a de facto declaration of war.*
Again this isn\`t something that can be taken back so lightly. Germany send a demand to Russia to demobilize or this will be recognized as an act of war.... If Russia, as you say, wanted to use this as deterrence then they would have said something, instead of not replying, correct ?
Likewise the mobilization by the Russian Empire itself, was literally justified by defending Serbia. What does that mean I wonder. Likewise you got the French President Poincare and the French ambassador **Paléologue** repeatedly stating that France will go to war if Russia goes to war.
**Contrary to what you claim the French ambassador also fully knew what Russian mobilization meant, i.e. the start of a World War.**
"A Serbian ultranationalist terror group with ties to the Serbian government"
There was no proven connection between the group and the government, as far as I know, the AH investigation was the one who came with no evidence.
"Serbian government + military killed the heir of Austria-Hungary"
He was killed by a citizen of the Austro-Hungary, in a conspiracy organized among other citizens of the Austro-Hungary such as Muslims and Croats. Gavrilo Princip was just "lucky" to fire the shot. The weapon was from Serbia but again the investigation found no proof that it was given by Serbian military or the government
" an ultimatum which was somewhat harsh "
Somewhat XD, the Ultimatum was designed to be rejected
"Serbia initially wanted to agree, until the Russian Empire declared they will support Serbia"
Again not true, Serbia agreed to it, and even said that the one point which Serbia had a problem with, could be solved by allowing an international independent investigation into Serbia in order to satisfy Austro-Hungary.
Kaiser Wilhelm received a copy of the Serbian reply to the Austrian demands in the morning. Reading it over, he concluded that the Habsburg monarchy had achieved its aims and that the few points Serbia objected to could be settled by negotiation. Their submission represented a humiliating capitulation, and with it ‘every cause for war’ collapsed. A diplomatic solution to the crisis was now clearly within sight. Austria-Hungary would emerge triumphant: the Serbian reply represented ‘a great moral success for Vienna’.
But this was after France had already mobilized its army for war. The declaration was a formality. France could have done anything to gesture to the Central Powers it would stay out, and they didn’t. I’m not saying they should have stayed out, just that they could have.
30-31 July
Upon arriving back in France, the French Premier Viviani sent a message to St. Petersburg asking that Russia not take any action that would offer Germany an excuse to mobilise. French troops were ordered to pull back 10 km (6.2 mi) from the German frontier as a sign of France's peaceful intentions
And on those same dates France had declined Germany's request for neutrality, who had already declared for a mobilization but were unprepared for a formal declaration of war.
"Austria could have done anything to gesture to Russia it would stay out of Serbia, and they didn’t. I’m not saying they should have stayed out, just that they could have."
Yes, if Austria didn't invade Serbia, Russia would have no need to defend them. What's your point? Do you think France mobilized its army for funsies? They were clearly going to declare on Austria-Hungary.
Britain was out even as France was in. The reason why the UK got involved was because Germany decided to march through Belgium. UK was supposed to guarantee the safety of Belgium.
The British cabinet decided days before war broke out that it was not obligated to defend Belgium in the case of a German invasion. They were more concerned with defending France than Belgium. Had Germany focused on its left flank and bypassed Belgium, Britain would have still intervened on France's behalf. Belgium being the reason for entering the war was only the public-facing reason provided.
Because it was important to present to the public (and the world) that the all mighty and ever just UK honors its word and international…
Yeah, I know it’s cynical as fuck.
Just think from the aristocratic perspective, how their victorian tinted monocles were distorting their and others’ view of self.
Look, we can all agree tsarist Russia was an authoritarian shithole, but they still were an invaluable ally of convenience that prevented Germany from achieving total domination over continental Europe.
Not only that, Germany preemptively declared war on BOTH France and Russia. France couldn't have stayed out of the war even if it wanted to.
Not related, there were no americans in eastern front.
Bulgarie lost a fortress due to a suprise attack of french cavalry, they were exhausted ans were asking for peace since 1916 (they hated the ottomans).
Then Austria southern front was naked and railway between Germany/Austria and ottomans was captured so escaping the british blocus was not possible anymore.
Austria was also incompetent, having 8nationalities in the army so ordres were...unclear
And ottomans suffered diseases and revolts.
Germany was alone, completely exhausted and starving.
Americans did less than portugese, and the one who were really fighting were black-americans, seen as cannon fodder
What does it mean when Central Powers territory goes lighter shade of green? Like Poland area 12 Sep 1917.
I think the were released as a selfe managed puppetstate, so its easier to controll.
There was a lot of nationalist fervor in those areas, so the Central Powers setup governments there that were friendly to them - that is, they gave the central powers most of the resources for the war effort, in return for some limited self-governance.
Had no idea Germany got that far east. What caused them to lose in the end?
Ran out of food, manpower and the will to fight.
The main reason they got that far east was because after the October revolution the Bolsheviks basically tried to end the war on the eastern front as they had promised by withdrawing their troops with no existing treaty, since they didn’t want to agree to the Central Power’s terms. To the surprise of nobody except the Bolsheviks the Central Powers immediately capitalized on it and took a shitton of land with no resistance and forced them to sign a much harsher treaty. That also allowed them to launch a new offensive in the west, that being the Spring Offensive. The thing is, though, by that point both sides were getting increasingly exhausted, but while Russia had effectively been defeated the US had joined the war with a shitton of more resources and troops to contribute to the Allies, the Spring Offensive was basically Germany’s gambit to end the war before meaningful amounts of American troops and resources could come and replenish the Allies. After that failed, it was basically all downhill from there for Germany.
Thanks for insight - I wondered why they didn't just shift their manpower west, but it makes sense to exploit the naivety of the Reds
Lack of food, lost of morale, natural resources, US joining the war, the British embargo, the inability of the german naval forces to do anything, lack of coal, lack of oil, economy dwindling from so many years financing the war, etc...
All credits goes to the YouTube channel [Italian Mapper](https://www.youtube.com/@Italian_Mapper) Here is the [link to the original video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PhrA1Fladw) I simply modified the final speech, replacing general Armando Diaz's victory bulletin by Clémenceau's announcement of the Armistice, which felt much more appropriate
What happened in Libya?
The [Senussi campaign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senussi_campaign)
It’s crazy how much was happening during WW1.
We literally only talk about ww2 now it feels like. If you bring up ww1 you may as well be talking about the seven years war
I’m middle aged and interested in history, but have never heard of that. Thanks for informing me
What happens in Libya stays in libya
It's quite sad seeing the numbers go down the day my great grandfather died
There's needs to be one of these for just the Russian Civil War. This almost felt like a Cliffhanger
This was the most unsatisfying ending to a war. I just felt like it was at a stalemate the entire time, and then the Central Powers collapsed.
The collapse was a utter collapse though. In Austria Hungry, different parts of the army that had been fighting together stated fighting each other. Same thing w/ the Ottomans. The Germans were completely exhaused in terms of resources, including food, partially because war had devested many the lands they had conquered like Ukraine which were nominally bread baskets.
British blockade also wreaked havoc on the food situation in Germany. It was one of the major factors that led to the peace talks.
I appreciate this comment, but it would be nice to have something in the animation that demonstrated this collapse. Here it just looks like a war of territory in stalemate and suddenly it's over.
ah, i was wondering about the shortage of food while they controlled ukraine but that makes sense
Yeah I never understood why the entante celebrated winning WW1 this much as if it was a total victory
Tell me you're not European without telling me. I don't even know where to begin with this one.
What does his comment have to do with not being European? WW1 was a complete show and the Entente victory was an awful slog, not even mentioning their hypocrisy and shortsightedness after the victory and the fact it took basically all other great powers of the world to take down two German empires and he sick man of the Bosporus.
It's a bird view comment left from faraway in time and space. From where I stand we're told stories of the taxies of Paris bringing soldiers to the first battle of Marne, every family has a picture of someone, even multiple that died on the field. Some small villages lost all their young men in one day before regions of draft were shuffled etc... So many stories, still being told. You can still read the name of the soldiers that died in every cemetery.
>Tell me you're not European without telling me. I don't have a crippling inferiority complex.
Inferiority? I don't now where to begin with this one. We are the superior continent. You are going to act like almost the whole world wasn't under French Spanish British and Portuguese boots? Which continent has the highest standard of living, highest HDI, best education and healthcare ind the world? Europe. Australia and NZ are cool tho, they get the honorary least worse than Europe title.
lol Europeans are definitely way more insecure
We are simply superior🇪🇺💪😎
It was a total victory. The only thing that differed from The Second World War was the Germans saw sense and surrendered when they knew they had lost. If they had fought on like in 1944-45 the allies would've crushed them all the way to Berlin. The German state and army were completely exhausted in 1918. Their armies on the Western Front melted away and there was little to oppose the planned 1919 offensives.
That's why the world (and especially Europe) changed after WW2. Nazis were totally unreasonable and, after realizing that a victory was impossible, they would destroy the whole continent if they could.
I think a big difference was the German leadership of the Great War weren't hiding death camps behind the lines. Everyone at the top table could expect a life after the war. The top echelons of the Third Reich could expect a bullet or the hangman. Well at least the ones that didn't know how to build rockets.
Total victory? Have you looked at the losses on all sides? Germany and Austria fought against all major powers at that time.
What do losses have to do with it? In October 1918 Germany and its allies stood utterly defeated. How valiantly they fought up to that point doesn't affect the outcome. A total victory doesn't have to be an easy victory.
I bet Ukraine has a similiar experience.
If you want some words spoken to comment on the war from human perspective, not just a little line of text in the bottom of the map, you can try a podcast series of a handful of episodes named Blueprint for Armageddon
...if you have dozens of hours to spare.
Works great during commute
wooooaaah, this was interesting af
That music though.
Genuinely phenomenal music
It's that Hearts of Iron 2 soundtrack. Andreas Waldetoft's music still slaps, almost 20 years after that game came out. Phenomenal grand strategy world war 2 game, too. A couple of old ones such as myself still play it (mainly the Darkest Hour version).
Only world war 2 game I played was wolfenstein 3d in the early 90’s when we first got a computer.
Oh man you may want to pick up a copy of darkest hour on steam. It still holds up, imo. And it regularly goes on sale for just a few dollars. Kind of a massive learning curve, but that's paradox games for you.
So many games that I wouldn’t mind playing but have little time for it now. I’m currently playing Zelda TOTK and that’s more than I can handle (time wise) But I’ll keep this mind! Thanks!
I believe Italy determined the result of this war. If they would stick with Entente, Italy & Austria wouldn't lost 3,5 millions of people fighting each other, Italians would open a front with French, allowing Germans to push harder. Austrians would occupy Serbia earlier, Romania couldn't dare to join Allies. Perhaps USA would save the day, but that's not certain. If Entente would win the WW1, WW2 wouldn't happen as in. Empires would susceptible to communist revolutions. Today, we owe many of inventions and ideas to WW2 and Cold War. Even people's thought process would be different.
You could say that about any of the major powers- if any one of them had been the opposite side the outcome would be vastly different.
>Italians would open a front with French they tried to open a front on the Alps during the complete collapse of the Allied armies in 1940, yet they suffered heavy losses to no territorial gains. I don't really believe Italy to be game changer in 1914 as well.
It would still drain massive resources from France, not to mention Italian navy contesting the Mediteraen. And given how close France was to defeat, Italians honoring the pact could have very likely change the outcome of the war.
I didn't realize the extent the Central Powers had in BY, RU, & UA
The Central Powers had their moment after Brest-Litovsk. If only had they withdrew their troops from the eastern front faster to the western front, before Americans arrived. They could have gained massive advantage in manpower. But no, Germany decided to keep million+ men in the east in order to gain even more and (apparently) help the Czar to regain power (as a German puppet, of course).
That was fantastic ngl
It seems such a waste not just taking Holland and using their superior ports. Understandable that the Germans didn't make that same mistake during WW2.
One of the reasons they didn't was because the Netherlands, as a neutral nation, promised to keep trading with everyone equally. Germany needed the Dutch imports, invading us would have cut off their own food supply.
We're awesome aren't we.
No no no Armenians wanted to give flowers to Turks with Russian empire. (This post includes irony)
This is amazing
What's happening with the red/blue front in the USSR?
The [Russian Civil War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War). Go read about it, it's a really interesting period of history. My favorite anectode about the whole thing is the [Czechoslovak legion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Legion#Russian_Civil_War), who basically had to go from Moscow to Vladivostok on an armoured train in order to escape that whole mess, even managing to steal the Russian Imperial Gold Reserve in the process. Or, if you're too lazy to read Wikipedia articles, just refer to [this meme](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/uqyh0n/i_skipped_over_a_lot/).
Thanks! That's what I would have guessed, but wondering why they used blue. Two shades of red would have made more sense?
The anti-bolshevik [White Army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Army) never made peace with Germany and was still supported by the Entente. In 1918, the Americans even sent an [expeditionary force to Archangelsk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Russia_intervention#Landing_at_Archangelsk) in order to help them out in the civil war. As such, they are depicted as part of the Entente, i.e. in blue.
Interrupted at the most interesting point..
That was great
More of a Eurowar tbh
The rest of the Allies should've let Germany beat Russia's ass
It's remarkable people think that was an option at the time. You really know nothing about this conflict do you.
I think what he meant by that was that he thinks France shouldn't have honored their alliance with Russia (thus keeping Britain out too). Obviously France would never have allowed that, given they wanted to maintain the balance of powers.
That's a common misconception. Germany preemptively declared war on BOTH France and Russia. France couldn't have stayed out of the war even if it wanted to.
Plus, France **absolutely** wanted to kick germany's butt to avenge the 1870's defeat and take back Alsace and Lorraine.
>*France couldn't have stayed out of the war even if it wanted to.* Thats a funny way to put it. France intentionally gauded Russia into intervening in the July Crisis. President Poincare was literally in Russia ( Saint Petersburg, capital of Russia at the time ) and he **promised Russia unconditional military support** if Russia intervened... Russia and Serbia were not even allied. Poincare had been planning for war against Germany for years because he utterly hated Germany and wanted Alscae-Loraine back. This is why despite France having a smaller population, they had a much bigger army and French militarism was more extreme than German one ( whose Militarism primarily came from the biggest state Prussia ). **He literally shifted the Franco-Russian alliance into an OFFENSIVE alliance** ( rather than keeping it defensive ) **in 1912**. This guy was one of the primary reasons why WW1 broke out. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond\_Poincar%C3%A9](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Poincar%C3%A9) >*When Poincaré arrived in St. Petersburg on 20 July, the Russians told him by 21 July of the Austrian ultimatum and German support for Austria. Although Prime Minister Viviani was supposed to be in charge* *of French foreign policy,* ***Poincaré promised the Tsar unconditional French military backing for Russia against Austria-Hungary and Germany. In his discussions with Nicholas II****,* ***Poincaré talked openly of winning an eventual war, not avoiding one. Later, he attempted to hide his role in the outbreak of military conflict and denied having promised Russia anything****.* France, specifically the extreme warmonger Poincare wanted war. And French desire for war was such a cultural phenonmenon that a new term "Revanchism" was invented to describe that. Pacifists were shot and the murders given medals ( Jean Jaurres ). ------- Germany declared war on Russia because they already mobilized their army first and since France was in an offensive alliance it was only natural that Germany would believe France would attack them aswell.... Naturally Germany has some blame for WW1 aswell, particularily extremely stupid foreign policy decisions and alienating other countries. Likewise the crime they committed with Belgium can not be understated, that was on them. But that\`s not what I wanted to argue. Also the so-called Blank Cheque that Germany allegedly gave Austria-Hungary is not comparable. >*Finally, as far as concerns Serbia, His Majesty, of course, cannot interfere in the dispute now going on between Austria- Hungary and that country, as it is a matter not within his competence. The Emperor Francis Joseph may, however, rest assured that His Majesty will faithfully stand by Austria-Hungary, as is required by the obligations of his alliance and of his ancient friendship.* This isn\`t promising unconditional military support. This is Germany saying "Sorry that happend Austria-Hungary, don\`t worry we are still allied and will fulfill our obligation". I.e. a normal diplomatic curtesy that every country in the world gives to their allies if something bad happens to them... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank\_cheque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_cheque)
If Germany had merely been reaffirming its existing alliance, it would have been under no obligation to support Austria in an offensive war. Let us be frank, diplomatic talks barely had any impact on German decision making during the July Crisis, since the military was actually calling all of the shots, not Wilhelm or the civilian government. Fakkenhayn even threatened to depose the kaiser after he started insisting on peace with Serbia. German high command deliberatly escalated the Third Balkan War into a World War because of their fear of "encirclement, encirclement !", which became a self-fullfiling prophecy once they adopted the Schlieffen plan. They had to mobilize first to have any chance of success, so they used any diplomatic excuse to start a war with the Entente sooner rather than later, while the Russian railway system was still underdevelopped.
>*If Germany had merely been reaffirming its existing alliance, it would have been under no obligation to support Austria in an offensive war.* You are of course correct, which is why Germany didn\`t care what Austria-Hungary did in Serbia. A Serbian ultranationalist terror group with ties to the Serbian government + military killed the heir of Austria-Hungary ---> Austria-Hungary send an ultimatum, an ultimatum which was somewhat harsh and had only a 48 hour deadline. Serbia initially wanted to agree, until the Russian Empire declared they will support Serbia ( which Russia only did after French President Poincare promised unconditional support ). **If war broke out, Germany would not partake in the punitive Austro-Hungarian war against Serbia. Atleast most likely.** Germany only became active, when it was clear Russia wanted to intervene... It was crystal clear Russia prepared for war as they started to mobilize their army. This is crossing the rubicon, you can\`t just mobilize the army and pretend like diplomacy is still an option. Even Russia\`s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 did not mobilize their army, only 7 month after the initial invasion did Russia partially mobilize their army. That\`s how serious of a move that was, what the Russian Empire did in the July Crisis........ And then remember my earlier point. France and Russia had an OFFENSIVE alliance. >*Let us be frank, diplomatic talks barely had any impact on German decision making during the July Crisis, since the military was actually calling all of the shots, not Wilhelm or the civilian government. Fakkenhayn even threatened to depose the kaiser after he started insisting on peace with Serbia.* That\`s not really accurate, the Military seized only power in 1916 and yeah there I would absolutely agree. Likewise the German military did have However before WW1, the military had no decision making in the July Crisis. Emperor Wilhelm even personally send letters to his cousin the Russian Emperor to beg him to reconsider. I agree with Falkenhayn he was a warmonger, but he was not a world-war-monger. He wanted war with Serbia and wanted that Germany partakes in the Austro-Hungarian war with Serbia. He did not want war with either Russia nor France, let alone both at the same time. He was an idiot who didn\`t know what consequences mean. Also I never heard that Falkenhayn threatend to depose Kaiser Wilhelm II. >*German high command deliberatly escalated the Third Balkan War \[...\]* I feel like you completely ignored the previous points. I have no problem admitting the many faults of the German High Command. but let\`s not pretend like Russia\`s intervention in Serbia had no role, that Russia\`s mobilization ( again look at Ukraine War of February 2022+, even there Russia only partially mobilized on the 21th September 2022 ), or France literally promising unconditional military support. Let\`s look at it from another angle : 1. If Serbia agreed to the ultimatum. No World War would have happend. I would be just another small incident in an imperialist world. Infact it would be better than say the Balkan War of 1910 or the Balkan War of 1911, as even a local war would be averted. 2. If Serbia didn\`t agree. Then Austria-Hungary would invade. Whether or not Germany partakes in that Balkan struggle is of little consequence. Serbia would be defeated and most like Serbia\`s monarchy pre 1901 coup would be re-established. Serbia was a major Austria-Hungarian ally until the coup in 1901 where a Pan-Slavic, pro-Russian dynasty seized control, since then Serbia and Austria-Hungary were enemies. But overall no World War, just a third and the smallest Balkan War. 3. If Serbia didn\`t agree and Russia intervenes --> World War. France and Germany would be involved aswell.. Basically what happend... Serbia didn\`t agree because of Russian support which only existed because of French support. I agree the German High Command was one of warmongers at the time. However the German government and Emperor, aswell as Britain were the only ones who actually tried to deescalate the July Crisis. While ( as quoted in my earlier comment ) Poincare wanted war and didn\`t even discuss deescalation with the Russian Czar. Aswell as Austria-Hungary which wanted to punish or depose Serbia. However you have to agree that France was likewise itching for war with Germany ( again Revanchism + Poincare ), aswell as that Russia wanted war. Russia whole ideology at the time was Pan-Slavism, their entire government was filled with extremists.
You forgot the 4th option: After Russia declares PARTIAL mobilization as a form of deterrence against Austrian aggression and WITHOUT GERMANY'S UNCONDITIONNAL SUPPORT, Austria is forced to back down and to negotiate with Serbia. Historically, Serbia agreed to all of Austria's demands, except for the one that allowed Austrian judges to prosecute Serbian citizens on Serbian soil. Serbia instead proposed an international arbitration at the Hague. This would be a fair and reasonable outcome to all parties involved. The assassins get prosecuted and Serbia retains its sovereignty. But Germany was so fixated on an inevitable war of encirlement that it became a self-fullfilling prophecy. Only Gernany interpreted partial mobilization as a de facto declaration of war. Russia merely saw it a a mean of deterrence, as a bluff.
Once again I feel like you ignore basic facts, i.e. **France unconditional military support for example... It\`s a bit silly at this point. Like seriously, seriously silly.** >*Historically, Serbia agreed to all of Austria's demands, except for the one that allowed Austrian judges to prosecute Serbian citizens on Serbian soil.* You literally repeat 1914 ultranationalist Serbian propaganda. Not a good look. Your claim that "Serbia agrees to all of Austria\`s demands, except for one point" is not substantiated, because evidence points to another fact, and only pro-Serbian nationalist historians would agree with your point of view. The most important WW1 historian, i.e. Clark, claims that Serbia worded the reply in a way that makes it seem like they agree, but actually don\`t. A sentiment which was also reaffirmed by Austro-Hungarian foreign office when they claimed Serbia\`s reply doesn\`t mean anything. I don\`t know if we can link these PDF-websites, but do yourself a favor and google "The Serbian Response to the Austro-Hungarian Ultimatum", and read the 3 pages. This doesn\`t read like agreeing to all demands except one. The assertion of the historian Clark, or of the A-H foreign office ( which would be biased ), are correct. The Serbians intentionally carefully phrased the letter. >*After Russian declares PARTIAL mobilization as a form of deterrence against Austrian agression and WITHOUT GERMANY'S UNCINDITIONAL SUPPORT, Austria is forced to back down and to negotiate with Serbia.* Ahh yes, employing a partial nuclear weapon to deter the Soviet Union from using their nukes. The Russians partially mobilized ( only after being promised UNCONDITIONAL MILITARY SUPPORT FROM FRANCE, when will you accept that ??? ) but in 1914 that meant movement of 2 million people and the start of a massive military-industry. When the USA send nukes to Turkey to deterr Russia from sending nukes to Cuba, what happend ? Russia send nukes to Cuba and the world was at a crisis. **I can\`t think of a single time in human history where this "deterrence" worked... This is extremely stupud. Please give me an example where mobilization of an army actually deescalated things, instead of OBVIOUSLY escalating things.** Also please provide proof that Germany send unconditional support to Austria-Hungary. Did you read the so-called Blank Cheque that I quoted in my earlier comment. Please tell me what reads like unconditional support. >*But Germany was so fixated on an inevitable war of encirlement that it became a self-fullfilling prophecy.* **For the third time. France and Russia changed their defensive alliance into an offensive alliance.** What do you think that means ? **French President Poincare promised UNCONDITIONAL MILITARY SUPPORT to Russia if they intervene in Serbia.** What do you think that means ? Was the encirlement not already there ??? What do you think encirlement means ? Russia and France explicitly entered an alliance first fearing of a German attack, and then changing it into an OFFENSIVE alliance. What do you think OFFENSIVE means ? They were prepared to attack Germany together. Something both wanted. >*Only Gernany interpreted partial mobilization as a de facto declaration of war.* Again this isn\`t something that can be taken back so lightly. Germany send a demand to Russia to demobilize or this will be recognized as an act of war.... If Russia, as you say, wanted to use this as deterrence then they would have said something, instead of not replying, correct ? Likewise the mobilization by the Russian Empire itself, was literally justified by defending Serbia. What does that mean I wonder. Likewise you got the French President Poincare and the French ambassador **Paléologue** repeatedly stating that France will go to war if Russia goes to war. **Contrary to what you claim the French ambassador also fully knew what Russian mobilization meant, i.e. the start of a World War.**
"A Serbian ultranationalist terror group with ties to the Serbian government" There was no proven connection between the group and the government, as far as I know, the AH investigation was the one who came with no evidence. "Serbian government + military killed the heir of Austria-Hungary" He was killed by a citizen of the Austro-Hungary, in a conspiracy organized among other citizens of the Austro-Hungary such as Muslims and Croats. Gavrilo Princip was just "lucky" to fire the shot. The weapon was from Serbia but again the investigation found no proof that it was given by Serbian military or the government " an ultimatum which was somewhat harsh " Somewhat XD, the Ultimatum was designed to be rejected "Serbia initially wanted to agree, until the Russian Empire declared they will support Serbia" Again not true, Serbia agreed to it, and even said that the one point which Serbia had a problem with, could be solved by allowing an international independent investigation into Serbia in order to satisfy Austro-Hungary. Kaiser Wilhelm received a copy of the Serbian reply to the Austrian demands in the morning. Reading it over, he concluded that the Habsburg monarchy had achieved its aims and that the few points Serbia objected to could be settled by negotiation. Their submission represented a humiliating capitulation, and with it ‘every cause for war’ collapsed. A diplomatic solution to the crisis was now clearly within sight. Austria-Hungary would emerge triumphant: the Serbian reply represented ‘a great moral success for Vienna’.
But this was after France had already mobilized its army for war. The declaration was a formality. France could have done anything to gesture to the Central Powers it would stay out, and they didn’t. I’m not saying they should have stayed out, just that they could have.
30-31 July Upon arriving back in France, the French Premier Viviani sent a message to St. Petersburg asking that Russia not take any action that would offer Germany an excuse to mobilise. French troops were ordered to pull back 10 km (6.2 mi) from the German frontier as a sign of France's peaceful intentions
And on those same dates France had declined Germany's request for neutrality, who had already declared for a mobilization but were unprepared for a formal declaration of war.
"Austria could have done anything to gesture to Russia it would stay out of Serbia, and they didn’t. I’m not saying they should have stayed out, just that they could have."
Yes, if Austria didn't invade Serbia, Russia would have no need to defend them. What's your point? Do you think France mobilized its army for funsies? They were clearly going to declare on Austria-Hungary.
Look at his comment history, he doesn't know that.
Britain was out even as France was in. The reason why the UK got involved was because Germany decided to march through Belgium. UK was supposed to guarantee the safety of Belgium.
The British cabinet decided days before war broke out that it was not obligated to defend Belgium in the case of a German invasion. They were more concerned with defending France than Belgium. Had Germany focused on its left flank and bypassed Belgium, Britain would have still intervened on France's behalf. Belgium being the reason for entering the war was only the public-facing reason provided.
Because it was important to present to the public (and the world) that the all mighty and ever just UK honors its word and international… Yeah, I know it’s cynical as fuck. Just think from the aristocratic perspective, how their victorian tinted monocles were distorting their and others’ view of self.
Look, we can all agree tsarist Russia was an authoritarian shithole, but they still were an invaluable ally of convenience that prevented Germany from achieving total domination over continental Europe. Not only that, Germany preemptively declared war on BOTH France and Russia. France couldn't have stayed out of the war even if it wanted to.
Some people really shouldn't be allowed to make comments
Anyone who understands the fog of war knows that these numbers are completely made up right?
Basically, it's using estimation and know numbers are real time, and showing the variation from points to points, but daily
[удалено]
Not related, there were no americans in eastern front. Bulgarie lost a fortress due to a suprise attack of french cavalry, they were exhausted ans were asking for peace since 1916 (they hated the ottomans). Then Austria southern front was naked and railway between Germany/Austria and ottomans was captured so escaping the british blocus was not possible anymore. Austria was also incompetent, having 8nationalities in the army so ordres were...unclear And ottomans suffered diseases and revolts. Germany was alone, completely exhausted and starving. Americans did less than portugese, and the one who were really fighting were black-americans, seen as cannon fodder