Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 42

Thread: The Great War youtube channel

  1. #1
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,226

    The Great War youtube channel

    Don't know if this has been posted before but there is a youtube channel that covers WW1 as it unfolded week by week

    https://www.youtube.com/user/TheGreatWar



  2. #2
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,226
    Slowly making my way through this series and its great. Experience what the war was like week by week as if you lived through it. Fantastic idea

    The way it began, the Kaiser thinking the Serbian response to the Austrian ultimatum was reasonable only to find Austria declaring war an hour later which dragged Germany in to fight the Russians who allied with Serbia

    It's just unbelievable the hundreds of thousands that died just by Nov, only three months after it began. The generals in charge all around have no clue as to the firepower they have or what it does so men get sent to their death daily. The German chief of staff cracks up a couple of months in and has to be replaced

    The Brits have already lost their professional army at this point and are relying on conscripts and the colonies. Dragged in only because neutral Belgium got invaded so the Germans could get into France. So much for neutrality

    Everybody wanted that quick decisive win and so went all out only to realise quick and decisive is a four year long grind in the mud, the seas and in the air

    Germany wanted to fight Russia because they were afraid modernising Russian railways would make it impossible for Germany to ever defeat Russia if attacked in the future

    France wanted revenge against Germany for the the Franco prussian war forty years earlier using a fighting style also from forty years ago. They learn the hard way

    The Austrians wanted to teach the Serbians a lesson but they lost their archduke because they had already occupied half of what was former yugoslavia by that point

    The Turks wanted war because they had a war monger of a defense minister

    The Europe map pre 1914 is unrecognisable, where the borders were and where they are now
    Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Dec 17, at 00:53.

  3. #3
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,226
    Can strong trading relations between countries prevent war between them ?

    Whenever this question is raised i remember Z saying France & Germany were each others biggest trading partners before the outbreak of WW1 hence no.

    Well, consider who the financial & economic giants of that period were. Banks, Industrialists & shipping lines. These people have the least interest in any major global conflict and are panic stricken when it does break out. A war is a catastrophe for international finance

    The reason the war happens is because the former were out of the decison making loop. Whether to go to war is decided by Generals, Monarchs & diplomats of the aristocratic elite that are generally blind to economic reality.

    If business isn't consulted, if business isn't influential then wars can certainly break out between trading partners. Otherwise if they put up enough of resistance maybe not. In other words it isn't a given.

  4. #4
    Regular
    Join Date
    17 Sep 08
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    s & shipping lines. These people have the least interest in any major global conflict and are panic stricken when it does break out. A war is a catastrophe for international finance

    The reason the war happens is because the former were out of the decison making loop. Whether to go to war is decided by Generals, Monarchs & diplomats of the aristocratic elite that are generally blind to economic reality.

    If business isn't consulted, if business isn't influential then wars can certainly break out between trading partners. Otherwise if they put up enough of resistance maybe not. In other words it isn't a given.
    Totally baseless and ahistorical. Business men and industrialists do make representations to the govt like the requirements of raw materials or territories desired like Belgium and northern France which are heavily industrialised. they are very much in the loop.

    wont these vultures like freely acquired resources or slave labour?

    Not everyone believes in liberal free trade. for example at the time of depression, protectionism was very heavy and nazis like Schacht concluded that mutilateral world trade is at the end.


    please Read the ww1 books.

    The big picture you have is all over the place.

    Germany, a newly emergent power united only 4 decades before, wants to change the balance of power to where they are predominant.

    Britain and France are status quo powers who will respond to any attempt by Germany to upset the balance in Europe.

    Thats the story of both world wars.

    Germany and japan had idiotic radical nationalists who wanted to follow Britain and France in robbing lands and resources to assert emergence of great power status and secure reources for themselves..

    They were around atleast 50 years late.
    Last edited by YoungIndia; 27 Dec 17, at 16:52. Reason: edt

  5. #5
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Can strong trading relations between countries prevent war between them ?

    Whenever this question is raised i remember Z saying France & Germany were each others biggest trading partners before the outbreak of WW1 hence no.

    Well, consider who the financial & economic giants of that period were. Banks, Industrialists & shipping lines. These people have the least interest in any major global conflict and are panic stricken when it does break out. A war is a catastrophe for international finance

    The reason the war happens is because the former were out of the decison making loop. Whether to go to war is decided by Generals, Monarchs & diplomats of the aristocratic elite that are generally blind to economic reality.

    If business isn't consulted, if business isn't influential then wars can certainly break out between trading partners. Otherwise if they put up enough of resistance maybe not. In other words it isn't a given.
    It was certain German industrialists that helped fund Hitler, I don't think anybody really realised how mad he was. They were just concentrating on his getting Germany back to work strategy and out of the financial mess it was in

  6. #6
    Regular
    Join Date
    17 Sep 08
    Posts
    68
    Hitler around Feb33 them called the major industrialists like Krupps for a meeting and told them his intention to crush the left and parliamentary system. They all gave donations for the March elections and eventually destroy the republic starting with the enabling act.

    Trade unions were crushed in may by SA thugs.

    They are bloody important in the national strategy.

  7. #7
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by YoungIndia View Post
    Hitler around Feb33 them called the major industrialists like Krupps for a meeting and told them his intention to crush the left and parliamentary system. They all gave donations for the March elections and eventually destroy the republic starting with the enabling act.

    Trade unions were crushed in may by SA thugs.

    They are bloody important in the national strategy.
    No doubt it was in the industrialists interest to Crush the left ...but were the industrialists looking for another war, debatable!

  8. #8
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,226
    Quote Originally Posted by YoungIndia View Post
    Totally baseless and ahistorical. Business men and industrialists do make representations to the govt like the requirements of raw materials or territories desired like Belgium and northern France which are heavily industrialised. they are very much in the loop.

    wont these vultures like freely acquired resources or slave labour?
    Who are they going to sell to after the war ?

    Yeah, that's the point

    Not everyone believes in liberal free trade. for example at the time of depression, protectionism was very heavy and nazis like Schacht concluded that mutilateral world trade is at the end.

    please Read the ww1 books.
    Which ? i quoted what Niall Ferguson had to say within context of ww1

    Besides its far more fun to have some one speak, hence this thread

    Germany, a newly emergent power united only 4 decades before, wants to change the balance of power to where they are predominant.
    Austria wanted that. Their war with Serbia was one of empire. The Germans wanted to check the Russians who were industrialising quick.

  9. #9
    Regular
    Join Date
    17 Sep 08
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Who are they going to sell to after the war ? .
    They have more to sell and with resources not acquired at great cost. thats the point

    Politics is about interests. USA and britain had a highly profitable trade going after their bloody breakup. Not an issue.

    They will find their markets

    To cite an example ,France sought an accomodation with germany(american protectionism in 1929 was alienating a lot of people) barely a decade after they lost 1.3 million to the germans . Germans also destroyed factories,mines,villages needlessly before the armistice,

    Thats how it goes.


    Which ? i quoted what Niall Ferguson had to say within context of ww1
    I am not a fan of his work.

    Specialised works on ww1 include Hew strachan, John keegan,Martin Gilbert, David stevenson.

    Those times were different. colonialism was still in large parts of the world. Some if not many businessmen certainly found colonialsim profitable.Nation states were mostly less then 100 years old.

    Not all business and industrialists have stake in multilateral trade.They have different self serving needs. Someone multinational
    like IBM or siemens maybe more concerned if trade does not work.

    Often they are big supporters of nationalist politcians as they are attracted to RW ideology themselves.(Subhash chandra for eg)

    The german farmers for example wanted protection. They pressured Hindenberg align with Von Papen to accept Hitler as chancellor.


    They all have different interests and needs.


    Austria wanted that. Their war with Serbia was one of empire. The Germans wanted to check the Russians who were industrialising quick
    Austria is not in the great power stakes.Their interests was purely local( their empire) and they were facing effects of past balkan conflicts.

    Its the german right/far right which had aspirations to overtake britain in the great power status. Their basics aim(going by the september program and treaty of brest ) seemed to be hegemony in central.eastern europe and robbing Belgium /France of some highly industrialised regions. Refer mittel europa and lebensraum.
    Last edited by YoungIndia; 27 Dec 17, at 17:51. Reason: edt

  10. #10
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,226
    Quote Originally Posted by YoungIndia View Post
    They have more to sell and with resources not acquired at great cost. thats the point
    Who's buying ? THAT is the point

    They will find their markets
    War torn countries aren't markets they are basket cases in need of support. This was primarily a euro war, not out somewhere else.

    To cite an example ,France sought an accomodation with germany(american protectionism in 1929 was alienating a lot of people) barely a decade after they lost 1.3 million to the germans . Germans also destroyed factories,mines,villages needlessly before the armistice,

    Thats how it goes.
    Am referring to ww1, and i will repeat what Niall said the people in finance were not in the loop. The only Austrian that was against the annexation of Serbia was assasinated, ironically by a Serbian


    I am not a fan of his work.

    Specialised works on ww1 include Hew strachan, John keegan,Martin Gilbert, David stevenson.
    Then quote them and show me the finance people were in the loop at the start of ww1

    Those times were different. colonialism was still in large parts of the world. Some if not many businessmen certainly found colonialsim profitable.Nation states were mostly less then 100 years old.

    Not all business and industrialists have stake in multilateral trade.They have different self serving needs. Someone multinational
    like IBM or siemens maybe more concerned if trade does not work.

    Often they are big supporters of nationalist politcians as they are attracted to RW ideology themselves.(Subhash chandra for eg)

    The german farmers for example wanted protection. They pressured Hindenberg align with Von Papen to accept Hitler as chancellor.

    They all have different interests and needs.
    Fighting abroad is all well and good to acquire land and resources. Sure business would get behind that

    But the fighting occurs at home not in the colonies.


    Austria is not in the great power stakes.Their interests was purely local( their empire) and they were facing effects of past balkan conflicts.

    Its the german right/far right which had aspirations to overtake britain in the great power status. Their basics aim(going by the september program and treaty of brest ) seemed to be hegemony in central.eastern europe and robbing Belgium /France of some highly industrialised regions. Refer mittel europa and lebensraum.
    Austria started it and the Germans followed. The Austrian attack was preventable with better management.

    A German Russian war however would have been harder to prevent. The Germans wanted a pre-emptive war. The Germans were nervous of the Russians. Before tackling France & Britan the Russians had to be taken care of

    Germans weren't the only ones, the Brits were absolutely paranoid about Russia too
    Last edited by Double Edge; 27 Dec 17, at 18:07.

  11. #11
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    Last edited by Toby; 27 Dec 17, at 19:28.

  12. #12
    Regular
    Join Date
    17 Sep 08
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post

    War torn countries aren't markets they are basket cases in need of support. This was primarily a euro war, not out somewhere else.

    These are first world countries with prosperity,good markets and purchasing power. These are not somalia or lebanon type cases.

    They have all fought before and got back on their feet before. what has changed now?

    Even Japan and germany were back on their feet. warsaw was rebuilt after total destruction.They didnt disappear..


    Then quote them and show me the finance people were in the loop at the start of ww1
    My point was their input is generally sought by the government for important national policies, war aims , grand strategy and they make regular representations
    to the govt.

    when they meet is your concern ...not mine..you do the research yourself.

    ut the fighting occurs at home not in the colonies.
    The prime instigators (germans) banked on their superiority and confidence that they wont fight at home. France didnt have the numbers to crush Germany....Britain was a sea power...

    Russia maybe the bigger country. but it industrialized late and the education levels were not good.They were pathetic in the 1905 war. If Russia was advanced as them in technology and industry they would not dare.Till today Russia has not caught up with germany in certain areas.


    They may be proved wrong...but their confidence was not based on fantasies. It was reasonable.

    They have to fight at home if they collapse abroad. but thats not how you approach wars, is it?

    Any heavy investment has elements of risk. Thats life. Its either heavy pay off or heavy loss. Something a business man or industrialist would understand.






    Austria started it and the Germans followed. The Austrian attack was preventable with better management.

    A German Russian war however would have been harder to prevent. The Germans wanted a pre-emptive war. The Germans were nervous of the Russians. Before tackling France & Britan the Russians had to be taken care of

    Germans weren't the only ones, the Brits were absolutely paranoid about Russia too

    If i were you, i would do some reading on ww1 and would debate on ww1 only after gaining sufficient experience. Asking questions is ofcourse not a bad idea. You are lacking familiarity with the basics.

    Read up on "blank cheque" and "schlieffen plan".

  13. #13
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,226
    Quote Originally Posted by YoungIndia View Post
    They have all fought before and got back on their feet before. what has changed now?
    That you could say was the folly that started WW1, everybody expected it to be quick, decisive and a war of honour. Just like in the good old days. It would be limited and confined. Not that everybody would get sucked into it and the worst bit is no way to stop or pullout until it concluded some FOUR years later

    That tell you something as to the thinking that went on? They didn't have a frickin' clue!

    And you want to tell me business was consulted. haha

    My point was their input is generally sought by the government for important national policies, war aims , grand strategy and they make regular representations
    to the govt.

    when they meet is your concern ...not mine..you do the research yourself.
    It sounds reasonable but there is no evidence to suggest they were consulted for ww1. Wars are never good for business. Some business benefits but the majority lose out.

    See the timeline between assasination and austria deciding to go to war

    You mean to tell me business was on board for a war of uncertain duration ? seriously ?


    The prime instigators (germans) banked on their superiority and confidence that they wont fight at home. France didnt have the numbers to crush Germany....Britain was a sea power...
    prime instigators were the Austrians. Turks joined in. Conrad Hotzendorf & Enver Pasha. It's no surprise the Austrian & Ottoman empires collapsed as a result, their best people were no longer in charge

    You could say the Germans were an interested party but not the prime instigator. The French wanted revenge for the war they had with Germany forty years prior.

    The sheer incompetence of generals on all sides is truly stunning. Turks & Austrians fighting in the mountains in winter without suitable clothing. As a result more men are lost to exposure than the enemy, a significant amount. Fighting in the mountains in winter ?

    They seem to think they are fighting a war from forty years prior without any knowledge of modern tactics and the weapons used.

    WHO sends infantry & cavalry with marching bands against machine guns

    These are europeans fighting other europeans not a bunch of savages on some time forgotten island.

    Russia maybe the bigger country. but it industrialized late and the education levels were not good.They were pathetic in the 1905 war. If Russia was advanced as them in technology and industry they would not dare.Till today Russia has not caught up with germany in certain areas.

    They may be proved wrong...but their confidence was not based on fantasies. It was reasonable.[
    Germans believed by 1917, the Russians would be unbeatable. It seems crazy but this is the thinking as i watch the series. Watch the prelude clips. THEN lets see your answers


    They have to fight at home if they collapse abroad. but thats not how you approach wars, is it?
    Nobody collapsed abroad. They had their colonies intact as far as China. The war was started at home

    If i were you, i would do some reading on ww1 and would debate on ww1 only after gaining sufficient experience. Asking questions is ofcourse not a bad idea. You are lacking familiarity with the basics.

    Read up on "blank cheque" and "schlieffen plan".
    Both have been covered in the series.

    heh, the idea of this thread is to follow ww1 week by week and experience what it was to live through it. It's way more fun than reading any book. I've not found anything wrong with the narrating so far. For something that is over a hundred years old, there shouldn't be any controversies left.

    If i were you i'd watch, then quote whatever you disagree with.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 28 Dec 17, at 14:45.

  14. #14
    Regular
    Join Date
    17 Sep 08
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    It sounds reasonable but there is no evidence to suggest they were consulted for ww1. Wars are never good for business. Some business benefits but the majority lose out.
    I already told you cannot generalize....they have different interest and needs.

    Its short term losses vs long term gains.Those long term gains are for decades and a long term investor would
    love that.

    War profits are also extraordinary for some businesses. for example tata and birla during ww2.so this "Wars are never good for business" is outright false in many ways.
    Even in destructive civil wars like afghanistan and bosnia, there are war profiteers

    whether businesses will be affected in the short term, it depends on the context ..not a simple one or two line declaration.

    For Germany, ww1 was fought mostly away from home excepting the bombing and parts of the more distant east (East Prussia,west Poland). That does not put german businesses in a catastrophe.

    In any case,its not always by logic.... the enthusiasm for war and nationalism may hide the problems that came later. Dont forget businessmen are nationalists too often and feel strongly about
    the nation.

    The allied bombing in ww2 was way more devastating and still German industry functioned to a significant extent.but we r not discussing that time here.

    Yes business and industry is consulted by govts for important policy matters if their contribution is involved. would you believe if someone says BJP wont meet RSS for a meeting?

    how can a govt execute war without industry ? Its not something plausible.


    prime instigators were the Austrians. Turks joined in. Conrad Hotzendorf & Enver Pasha. It's no surprise the Austrian & Ottoman empires collapsed as a result, their best people were no longer in charge
    You are again missing the difference between a local and a global war.

    Austria was only interested in beating down serbia as they felt its the only language serbs
    understand. Serbs were encouraging seperatist slavs in the empire and Austria had no other startegy
    vs serbia. But Austria feared russian intervention for which german backing is essential.

    Without meddling by Germany and to a much lesser extent by Russia it was a local conflict
    What made it a global flashpoint was the presence of russia and germany in the picture.
    They in turn will suck in their alliance partners who also see an opportunity for the spoils.


    For the global war, the Germans were the prime instigators giving a blank cheque to
    Austria. The german decision was taken several months before to back the hapsburgs in
    any action vs the serbs. The kaiser felt strongly about it. It was a case of
    backing the younger brother and also the racist motivation in form of germandom vs
    slavdom (held by many germans including key executives) .

    The ultimatum and destruction of any negotiations were all "Germany behind the back of
    Austria" and they were all designed to fail in favor of war.

    The exact war aims are not documented as the german leaders censored any talk of war aims.
    They wanted to be flexible as the war proceeded. but there was an important meeting from which
    the september program was typed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemberprogramm

    The german conduct is attributed to two possibilities.

    1. Fear of encirclement by France and russia on land and britain by the sea.
    As your program noted, France and russia had a modernisation program that will be realsied
    by 1917-18. It was in germany's interest to cripple them both and break out out of the encirclement by hegemony in
    central/eastern europe.

    2. Germany's africa project has failed due to lack of interest in settlement and funding.
    The alternative was central/eastern europe at the expense of "backward slavs".
    This was plain old imperialism- we will use the land better than backward natives

    German historians especially before the 60's denied number 2. A revisionist historian named Fritz Fischer changed
    it. Still the historians are not fully settled on the issue.

    If you ask yourself who desired change in status MOST, its Germany.

    For me , its number 2 due to german war settlement at brest and the clues given by the
    september program. Also that germany had ther most to gain by a change in balance of power

    To think that german leaders wont thnk about german predominance in europe is outside the
    realm of probability for me.

  15. #15
    Regular
    Join Date
    17 Sep 08
    Posts
    68

    part 2

    Germans believed by 1917, the Russians would be unbeatable.
    Germany had reasons to fear Russia's progress as it was the one bigger country
    in europe..

    However it would be decades before they catch up. Despite the huge industrialisation and literacy drive
    undertaken by Stalin's regime.

    It took ww2 for Soviet russia to defeat germany and with extremely terrible losses.

    Germany did have reasons to contain russia though even in 1910s.




    If i were you i'd watch, then quote whatever you disagree with.
    Its not about disagreement. you need a lot more experience and refinement before you can emerge
    as a serious debater in the subject.

    for example you said this - "Before tackling France & Britan the Russians had to be taken care of"

    Read the schlieffen plan and you would know its not the case.

    And did you have full idea about blank cheque and encirclement because of the narration?

    One narration and one book are baby steps at best.

    All i am pointing out is you are in too much of a hurry to make assertions when you can ask questions or know
    the subject first. Anyway the consequences of your actions are yours and not my concern.

    "congress did this in 1984. bjp did this in 2002" is not the way for strategic insights into the problems.
    Thats where you are going with "austria first ,germany next, russia next"

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Youtube of the day
    By Parihaka in forum Multimedia & Jukebox room
    Replies: 990
    Last Post: 08 May 18,, 16:51
  2. My youtube channel
    By zraver in forum Multimedia & Jukebox room
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 22 Jun 12,, 00:57
  3. A great video series. Some great footage of the BB's.
    By Dreadnought in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 29 Mar 12,, 04:19
  4. Great Star Trek Alternate Ending on Youtube!
    By xerxes in forum Movie & TV Room
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06 Sep 08,, 01:25

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •